M.Y.EQBAL - (1.) HEARD Mr. Rajendra Prasad learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board,
(2.) BEFORE admitting of this writ petition, a Bench of this Court by order dated 30,4.2003 while hearing the matter at the admission stage formulated two questions which arose consideration : (i) Whether the State Electricity Board has jurisdiction to give retrospective effect to a tariff notification or not as given vide Notification gazetted on 6th April, 2000 (Annexure 10); and (ii) Whether any clause of an agreement (Clause 13 of H.T. agreement herein) stands automatically deleted in pursuance of Boards decision or letter No. 150 dated 3rd April, 2000 or not in absence of a fresh agreement between the parties to delete such clause of the agreement." Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.2.2002 passed by the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer rejecting the claim of the petitioner made under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement on the sole ground that by virtue of the new tariff notification in respect of Induction Furnace Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement stood automatically deleted.
(3.) PETITIONER -industry is engaged in manufacturing of M.S. Ingots and Tor Steels, in its industrial unit. In the year 1996 petitioner entered into an agreement with the Board for the supply of electricity and the contract demand fixed was 2400 KVA. In terms of Clause 13 of the Agreement, petitioner was entitled to claim remission in the event Board fails to make constant supply of electricity. Petitioner made a claim under Clause 13 of the Agreement after depositing 50% of the bill amount which was required to be deposited pursuant to notification dated 20.7.1994. When claim of the petitioner was not decided, petitioner moved this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5259/2001. The writ petition was disposed of on 12.10.2001 with a direction to the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer Area Electricity Board, Dumka to dispose of the claim within the specified time. Pursuant to that direction the claim of the petitioner has been disposed of by the impugned order referred to herelnabove.;