- (1.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner limits his prayer only to the extent that for the year, 1993-94, the calculation shown in the impugned order at Annexure 6 gives lesser amount of remission and, in fact, as per Clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement (Annexure 5 to the memo of petition) to be read with several decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even for less than a period of 30 minutes, the demand charges and the guaranteed energy charges, set out in the schedule, shall be reduced, pro-rata for that period, and, therefore, for the year, 1993-94, instead of 761 hours' calculation, it should have been 1462 hours and, therefore, the calculation, shown in the impugned order at Annexure 6. to the memo of petition for the year, 1993-94 should be on the basis of 1462 hours, instead of the calculation based upon 761 hours.
(2.) It is further contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that for the year, 1997-98 the bill for energy charges raised by the Respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Annexure 3 to the memo of petition) covers the last date of payment as 30th May, 1998 and, therefore, as per Clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement (Annexure 5 to the memo of petition), a letter dated 28th May, 1998 (Annexure 7 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the Petitioner) was written and the Petitioner has also offered 50% payment under protest of the amount of bill, which is at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition and has demanded a proforma, fixed by the Respondent-Board for claim of refund/remission under Clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement (Annexure 5 to the memo of petition). It is further submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the amount of 50% of the bill at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition has already, been accepted by the Respondent-Board. It is further submitted that there is no statutory proforma fixed under Clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement to claim refund. In fact, on the basis of the data available, it requires a simple calculation, but, nonetheless, the aforesaid letter dated 28th May, 1998 was written, so that the claim of the Petitioner may not be rejected by the Respondents, on the ground that the Petitioner has not applied in the proforma published by the Respondent-Board.
(3.) It is further submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that as per Clause 4(b) of the notification, issued by the Respondents at Annexure A to the counter affidavit, filed by the Respondent-Board, the claim can be made by the Petitioner under Clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement, only in the Board's prescribed proforma and that too within ninety days after the due date of the bill. It is further contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that as the authorities of the Respondent-Board have not supplied the Board's prescribed proforma within time, some delay has caused in claiming the refund and, therefore, the delay, if any, is on the part of the Respondent-Board and hence the claim of the Petitioner cannot be brushed aside by the Respondents, as per the impugned order at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition. In fact, the Board cannot take the advantage of its own wrong. The Board's prescribed proforma is not available in the open market and the same is available only with some peculiar officers of the Respondent-Board and, therefore, to obey every "now &-then" the Petitioner has to approach those officers to make the claim of refund as per Clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement. Thus, the impugned order at Annexure 6 of the memo of petition, so far it relates to the year, 1997-98, has wrongly been issued by the Respondents and, therefore, let the matter be remanded to the concerned Respondent authority for a fresh decision for the year, 1993-94 (as wrong calculation has been done by the Respondents as "761 hours" and, in fact, it should have been "1462 hours") as well as for the year, 1997-98, directing the Respondents to calculate the amount of refund/remission, without considering the fact regarding delayed application.;