- (1.) Heard Mr. Biren Poddar. learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Board and with their consent this writ application is disposed of at this stage.
(2.) In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the bill dated 12-5-2000 relating to Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges for the financial year 1999-2000 on the ground that the bill is illegal and wholly without jurisdiction as in the said bill the Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges for 240 days have been included during which the electrical line of the petitioner was not in opeation on account of disconnection of supply of electricity by the Respondent-Board.
(3.) In course of agreement, learned counsel agreed that petitioner should make representation against the said bill under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement before the appropriate authority and the said claim shall be decided in accordance with law. However, Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Board submitted that while making claim under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement petitioner has to pay 50% of the amount of the disputed bill while Mr. Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not liable to pay 50% of the disputed bill. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the moment supply of electricity was disconnected, the agreement between the parties came to end and therefore petitioner is not liable to deposit 50% of the bill while making claim under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement. Mr. Poddar submitted that admittedly, there was no electric connection during the period of 240 days then the question of payment of Annual Minimum Guarantee charges does not arise. In this connection learned counsel relied upon two decisions of this Court in the case of "Rajeshwar Singh v. State of Bihar 1983 BLJ-508 (AIR 1983 Patna 194) and in the case of M/s Dipte Input. v. Bihar State Electricity Board 1987 BLJ-494;