M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the decision dated 11.11.99 of respondent No. 2 General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer. Chhotanagpur Area Electricity Board, whereby and whereunder he has held that no letter dated 2.7.92 for determination of agreement was ever served by the petitioner and in fact line was disconnected due to non -payment of electric dues existing on the date of disconnection.
(2.) PETITIONER entered into a H.T. Agreement with the respondent -Board in 1967 and supplementary agreement on 3.12.1970 for supply of electricity having contract demand of 200 KVA. In 1974 another supplementary agreement was entered into for additional demand of 135 KVA. Petitioners case is that there had never been continuous supply of electricity and due to total failure of the Board to supply electricity continuously at a contract demand the petitioner was forced to close down its factory. Accordingly as per Clause 4 of the supplementary agreement petitioner, gave 12 months notice to the respondent - Board to determine the agreement and in the notice dated 2.7.92 sent under registered post it was clearly mentioned that due to non -availability of power and frequent load -shedding, petitioner was unable to run the Unit and as such it was decided to stop production activities from October. 1993. It is alleged that pursuant to aforesaid notice dated 2.7.92 petitioner closed down the production activities from 27.10.93 and the electricity line of the petitioner was disconnected by the concerned respondent on 28.10.1993 and the meter was removed on 9.5.1994. However, utter surprise to the petitioner, the petitioner received a bill dated 12.10 -1994 as final bill for a sum of Rs. 19,96,312/ - which inter alia included the Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges for the period from 1993 -94 and April 1994 to October, 1994. The bill also included current arrear upto October. 1993 amounting to Rs. 4,38,441/ - and a further sum of Rs. 1,62,420/ - As excess interest on security deposit. Petitioner challenged the said bill dated 12.10.1994 and the notice dated 12.10.1994 for the initiation of certificate proceeding for the recovery of amount in CWJC No. 1964/95(R). In the said writ application the respondent -Board denied and disputed the receipt of notice of termination of agreement dated 2.7.92 alleged to have been sent by the petitioner. The case of the respondent -Board was that the hill dated 12.10.94 was raised according to the tariff and as per the consumption of electricity in the factory premises of the petitioner. The aforementioned writ application was disposed of on 26.8.96. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.8.96 is quoted herein below : "Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that from the bill, Annexure -3, itself it will appear that line was disconnected on 28.10.93. The respondents, however, accepting the said date of disconnection as termination of agreement have raised hill till 28.10.94 i.e. one year thereafter. He also says that raising bill up to 28.10.1994 is bad in law as the notice to terminate the agreement dated 2.7.1992. Annexure -2, was received by respondent No. 3. Learned Counsel, however, accepts that he is required to pay Rs. 4,38,441/ - for the electric consumed till 28.10.1994. Learned Counsel for the respondents says that since notice dated 2.7.92 was not received, the demand has been made till the period 28.10.1994 though the line was disconnected on 28.10.1993, Having considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties this much is obvious that the line of the petitioner was disconnected in 28.10.1993. Nothing has been pointed out in the counter -affidavit any circumstance for disconnection of the line on that date. If the line has been disconnected on 28.10.1993 there was no occasion for raising bill till 28.10.1994. However, this is a question of fact which requires to be determined by the respondents, Accordingly, petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 4,38,441/ - within one month from today. The petitioner is also permitted to file detailed claim as indicated above and other claims, if any before respondent No. 2 within the same time. In case such claim is filed, respondent No. 2 shall dispose of the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law disclosing the occasion for disconnection of line on 28.10.1993. This application is. accordingly, disposed of."
(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order petitioner filed representation reiterating that the notice dated 2.7.92 was duly sent to the respondent -Board by registered post and therefore raising bill dated 12.10.1994 and demanding Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges for the year 1993 -94 and for the period April. 1994 to October, 1994 is illegal and arbitrary. The respondent -Board also represented its case before the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer and reiterated that notice dated 2.7.92 was never sent by the petitioner or received by the respondent -Board and the petitioner in fact consumed electricity till 36.10.1993.;