- (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.4.2001 passed by respondent no. 2 General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer, Singhbhum Area, Jamshedpur, whereby claim of the petitioner made under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement on account of alleged interruption/load shedding in supply of power to the petitioner Industry during the financial year 1999 -2000 has been rejected.
(2.) PETITIONER is High Tension Consumer in respect of supply of electricity in the industry of the petitioner, located at Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. It is contended that the Board could not supply un -interrupted power to the petitioner industry as per the required contract demand, due to which he could not cover A.M.G. Units as well as maximum demand. Petitioner accordingly submitted claim under Clause 13 of the Agreement. Respondents in their counter -affidavit denied the averments regarding non -supply of constant and un -interrupted energy to the industry of the petitioner. Respondents' case is that it is the petitioner who was prevented from using electrical energy to be supplied by the Board and therefore claim was rightly rejected. The General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer in the impugned order came to the conclusion that petitioner was unable to take supply of power and therefore petitioner was not entitled to get any remission for the year 1999 -2000. 2. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Learned' counsel fully relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of "Bihar State Electricity Board and another VS. M/s Dhanawat Rice and Oil Mills" (A.I.R. 1989 SC 1030 : 1989 PLJR (SC) 19) and in the case of M/s Jamshedpur Roller Flour Mills(P) Ltd. VS. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors: [1999 (3) PLJR -683]. In the case of "Bihar State Electricity Board and another VS. M/s Dhanawat Rice and Oil Mills (supra), their Lordship after considering the relevant provisions of the Electricity Supply Act and the H.T. Agreement, has held that liability of the consumer towards Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges would not cease on account of tripping, power cut and load shedding. However, if the Board fails to provide constant supply of electrical energy, then consumer would be entitled to proportionate reduction in Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges. In the case of "M/s Jamshedpur Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. VS. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others" (supra), this Court reiterated that if on the failure of the Board to make constant supply of electricity, then a consumer as a matter of right would be entitled to proportionate remission in Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges or Maximum Demand Charges.
(3.) IN the instant case, curiously enough, petitioner has not annexed copy of the claim made by it under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement. According to the petitioner, if the petitioner is prevented from receiving or using electrical energy for the fault of the Board, then the Demand Charges and the Guarantee Charges shall be reduced in proportion of the ability of the consumer to take supply of energy from the Board. The General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer in the impugned order has found that it was the petitioner consumer who failed to take supply of Minimum Guaranteed energy from the Board. It was therefore, held that non consumption of electricity by the petitioner was because of the reasons incidental to the business of the petitioner. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order. The General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer rightly held that when consumer fails to consume minimum energy so granted under the agreement then question of proportionate reduction in payment of guarantee charges does not arise.;