TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Delip Jerath learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE prayer made in the Writ Petition is for quashing the order communicated by letter dated 27.7.2001 as contained in An -nexure -6 whereby and whereunder the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer has rejected the prayer in relation to relief regarding maximum demand and has observed that if any surcharge is paid by the petitioner, the same will be adjusted against future period. According to the petitioner, the Bill in question (Annexure -1) was for the period 1999 -2000 for a sum of Rs. 91,946 approximately. Upon receipt of the aforementioned bill, the petitioner deposited 50% thereof and receipt to that effect was issued by the Board on 9.8.2000 (Annexure -2). The petitioner thereafter filed an application for relief under the provisions of Clause 13 of the HT agreement wherein he stated that supply was not given as per agreement and that the petitioner was prevented from receiving or using energy on account of power interruption. In fact, along with the aforementioned claim the petitioner enclosed therewith the details regarding interruptions in power.
(3.) MR . M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the provisions of Clause 4 (a) of the agreement which has been quoted at paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition. The submission of Mr. Mittal is that the agreement itself is specific in relation to continuous supply of power. He further argues that the concept of Annual Minimum Guarantee is a concept that ensures or assures a consumer that in the event he receives constant power, he is only then, asked to give Annual Minimum Guarantee charges. According to him, if the consumer is prevented from receiving continuous power then the Board is not entitled to raise bills on the basis of Annual Minimum Guarantee charges.;