S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has preferred the writ petition for quashing the order dated 19th January, 2002 (Annexure -13) passed by the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer, Ranchi Area Electricity Board, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the said officer disposed of the petitioner's claim under clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement (H.T. Agreement for short) for the period 1992 -93 to 1998 -99 and the bill dated 27th February, 2002 (Annexure -14), raised on the basis of the aforesaid order. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 19th January, 2002 (Annexure -13) has been passed disposing of the claim of the petitioner under clause -13 of the H.T. Agreement without hearing the petitioner and without granting proportionate relief to the petitioner to which it is entitled, as per decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. 3. The counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions : (i) It was necessary for the Respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before disposing of the claim made by petitioner under Clause -13 of the H.T. Agreement. (ii) The order has been passed by the Respondent No. 2 with a mala fide motive without hearing the petitioner as the petitioner earlier requested to keep A.M.G. bills in abeyance since the petitioner was declared to be a sick Industry and after two years of the court's order. (iii) The bill has not been raised properly as evident from perusal of the break up that for Rs. 9,91,7191 - A.M.G. amount, out of which Rs. 2,57,976/ - has been paid, apart from remission of Rs. 60,274/ - granted. A Delayed Payment Surcharge (D.P.S. for short) of Rs. 8,29,040/ - has been raised for the period from 1992 -93 to 1998 -99.
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even on merit, it will be evident that the order is absolutely illegal. For seven years i.e. from 1992 -93 to 1998 -99, a total relief given is Rs. 60,274/ - out of total bill of Rs. 9,91,7191 - which is merely 6% of the total A.M.G. bill. To assume that there is only 6% disruption in power in a year, would be assuming to the extreme in favour of the Board. 2000 (1) P.L.J.R. 230; and M/s. Dumraon Textiles, reported in 1994 (2) P.L.J.R. 858. It was submitted that the remission both on account of maximum demand as well as units consumed has to be given to the ability of the consumer, apart from the Log Books maintained by a consumer. The proportionate reduction is to be given for every month of non -supply of power.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioner tried to impress the court that the claim of remission can be made by a consumer more than the A.M.G. Bills. 6. In respect to the first issue relating to hearing, Mr. M.S. Mittal, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was necessary for the Respondents to give opportunity of hearing, particularly, when this Court in some of the cases specifically directed the Respondents to give an opportunity of hearing while disposing the claim of petitioner made under clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement. It was also submitted that the Respondents had not heard the petitioner. The request made by the petitioner to keep the A.M.G. bills in abeyance, was also disposed of. Reference of letters dated 14th February, 2000 and 1st February, 2000 given in the order while disposing the petitioner's claim under clause 13 of H.T. agreement two years after the letters. According to the counsel for the petitioner, even from Annexure -A, it will be evident that the notice was given on 16th January, 2002 for petitioner's appearance on 19th January, 2002. Though, the petitioner in its rejoinder stated that no such notice was ever given, but the Respondents disposed of the matter on 19th January, 2002 i.e. merely given two days time. Further, according to the counsel, the sentence with out prejudice to the outcome of the writ petition filed by the consumer" mentioned in this order, though the present writ petition was filed on 2nd April, 2002, shows that the impugned order was passed giving a back date of 19th January 2002. So far as third issue relating to impugned bill is concerned, the counsel re -iterated the facts and highlighted the break up and D.P.S., as mentioned in the third issue.;