M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) The appellant is aggrieved by that part of the Judgment dated 18-8-98 passed by learned single Judge in CWJC No. 1888 of 1990R whereby it was held that the appellant shall be entitled to reduction of contract demand from 12000 KVA to 900 KVA with effect from June, 1991 instead of giving direction for reduction of load from 12000 KVA to 8000 KVA with effect from December, 1988.
(2.) The appellant, who is a High Tension Consumer, entered into an agreement in 1974 with the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board for supply of electricity on the maximum demand of 12000 KVA. It was alleged that the supply of electrical energy by the Board was deteriorated giving rise to serious disruption in the production and in order to keep its production intact, the appellant sought permission of the Board under Section 44 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (in short Act of 1948) for installation of generating sets in the premises. The Board granted permission to set up own generating sets of the capacity of 6 Megawatts and 3.5 Megawatts turbine by letter dated 15-10-1981.
(3.) The appellants case was that since the unit was not getting continuous supply of the contract demand of 12000 KVA and was forced to pay Annual Minimum Guarantee and Maximum Demand Charges on the basis of 12000 KVA and as such the appellant by notice dated 5-11-1987 addressed to the respondents requested for reduction of contract demand from 12000 KVA to 8000 KVA. The said notice was duly served upon the Electrical Executive Engineer on 12-11 -1987. The matter with regard to reduction of load remain pending with the Board from 1987 till 1989 in spite of repeated reminders sent by the appellant. Appellants further case is that after much persuation the Superintending Engineer recommended for reduction of load from 12000 KVA to 9000 KVA vide letter dated 25-8-89 and finally the claim of the petitioner-appellant was rejected on the ground that the application for reduction of load was not entertainable. The appellant said to have made several representations to the respondents and thereafter moved this Court by filing aforementioned writ petition. The respondent-Board in their counter-affidavit have not denied the service of notice but the contention of the Board is that subsequent to service of notice the actual load in the premises of the appellant was found more than 8000 KVA and sometimes more than 9000 KVA and therefore, appellant was not entitled for reduction of load from 12000 KVA to 8000 KVA. Respondents case is that while granting permission to the appellants company for installation of their own generating set, a condition was put that no claim for reduction of contract demand shall entertained due to additional energy generating from their own generating sets. The claim of the appellant for reduction of maximum demand was therefore not bona fide and was invalid.;