- (1.) Petitioner has challenged the bills for the period November, 199 9/02/2000 raised by the respondent-Board on the basis of AMG/MMG as per clause 16.8 of the 1993 tariff and also the order dated 11-7-2000 passed by Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Giridih rejecting the representation of the petitioner and upholding the correctness of the bills raised under the aforementioned clause of the tariff.
(2.) Petitioner had earlier challenged the aforesaid bills in CWJC No. 206/2000(R), which was disposed of on 2-3-2000 with a direction to the petitioner to file representation before the Electrical Suptd. Engineer and the later shall consider the representation 4 and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order.
(3.) Petitioner is a Small Scale Industry and is a consumer having contract demand of 500 KVA. It was contended that on 8-11-99 the meter installed in the factory of the petitioner was burnt and the said fact was committed to the Electrical Executive Engineer, Giridih Circle, Giridih. Accordingly, inspection was done in the factory of the petitioner on 19-11-99 and it was found that meter was burnt. However, respondents raised bill for the month of November, 1999 on the basis of monthly minimum guarantee charges. Petitioner raised objection but the Board took the stand that bill was rightly raised as per clause 16.8 of the tariff. It appears that the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Superintending Engineer holding that during the relevant period contract demand/contract load in the petitioner's factory exceeded 500 KVA and became 517 KVA in the month of May, 1999 and therefore petitioner did not come under the purview of the industrial policy as per the Board's letter No. 652 dated 11-10-99.;