- (1.) Petitioner has prayed for quashing the bill dated 1-8-2003 issued by the respondent Jharkhand State Electricity Board demanding a sum of Rs. 9,20,517/- being the Annual Minimum Guarantee (A.M.G.) charges for one year notice period subsequent to disconnection of the electrical line of the petitioner on 30-11-2000.
(2.) Petitioners case is that in the year 1990, petitioner became a H.T. consumer for supply of electricity in its plant having contract demand of 80 KVA. Subsequently, in 1998 the connected load of the petitioner was enhanced from 80 KVA to 180 KVA vide H.T. Agreement dated 10-6-98. On 5-3-99 the petitioner served a notice upon the respondent-Board under Clause 9(a) of the Agreement and the said notice was received on 6-3-99. After expiry of 12 months from 5-3-2000, the Agreement alleged to have been automatically stood terminated but the electrical connection of the petitioner was not disconnected. The petitioner therefore sent a letter dated 28-11-2000 requesting the respondent Board to disconnect its H. T. connection which was, however, disconnected by the Board on 30-11-2000. Petitioners further case is that the respondents after disconnecting supply of electricity, raised a bill dated 11-1-2001 of Rs. 14,54,101/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 9,20,216.73 paise was charged by way of A.M.G. for a period of one year subsequent to disconnection. Petitioner raised objection to the inclusion of the aforesaid amount as A.M.G. charges. The Electricity Executive Engineer of the respondent Board then corrected the bill and deleted the amount of A.M.G. charges. Petitioner thereafter deposited rest of the amount and there was no due at all. It is contended that all of a sudden respondents again served a bill claiming the said amount of Rs. 9,20,216.73 paise being A.M.G. charges for the period of one year notice subsequent to disconnection of supply of electricity. Petitioner filed objection against the aforesaid bill but instead of correcting the mistake, respondent Board sent a notice directing the petitioner to pay the amount of the aforesaid bill, failing which recovery proceedings will be initiated.
(3.) Respondents case on the other hand is that the notice dated 5-3-99 sent by the petitioner was not a termination notice as contemplated under Clause 9(a) of the H. T. Agreement. It is stated that even after expiry of one year from the date of the said notice, petitioner did not take any step or even approached the authority of the respondents to disconnect the electrical line rather consumed electricity and it was only in November, 2000 vide letter dated 28-11-2000, petitioner requested the Board to disconnect the line. The line was accordingly disconnected on 30-11 -2000 and the bill was raised including A.M.G. charges for a period of one year with effect from 30-11 -2000 till October, 2001. The Electrical Executive Engineer thereafter raised provisional bill after deleting the A.M.G. charges which was subsequently found wrong by the Board and the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer was directed to enquire into the said matter and submit a report. The General Manager in his report found that the amount of A.M.G. charges was wrongly deleted inasmuch as even if notice dated 5-3-99 would have been treated as termination notice, petitioner ought to have approached the Board for disconnection of supply of electricity immediately after the expiry of one year.;