R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the decision of the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer (respondent No. 2) taken under Clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement with respect to reduction in A.M.G, Charges and maximum Demand Charges relating to the period for the years 1989 -90 and 1990 -91, dated 21.12.1991 (Annexure 6) and directing him to pass fresh order in accordance with law; and for a direction to respondent No. 2 to forthwith dispose of the Claim Petitions under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement, filed by the petitioner on 2.11.1993 (Annexure 8) against A.M.G. Bills and Maximum Demand Charges for the years 1991 -92 and 1992 -93 and also for quashing the certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No. 5 (Misc.) 1994 -95, pending in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur.
(2.) MR . Biren Poddar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order dated 21.12.1991 (Annexure 6) is not in accordance with law inasmuch as the interruptions exceeding 59 minutes were only taken into consideration; the ability to consume electricity by the petitioner has been taken into account instead of inability of the Board to supply electricity and the formula applied is also wrong and, therefore, the rebate given on account of A.M.G, and maximum demand will be higher than the rebate given. He further submitted that during the strike period i.e. from 2.6.1990 to 31.3.1991, calculations have been made in similar manner. In support of his submission, learned Counsel relied on M/s. Suprabhat Steels Ltd. V/s. B.S.E.B., 1994 0 BBCJ 369, Balaji Wire Products V/s. B.S.E.B., 1995 2 AllPLR 920 : 1995 (2) PLJR 810, Bihar Gases Ltd. V/s. B.S.E.B., 1999 2 PLJR 105, B.S.E.B. V/s. Dhanawat Rice & Oil Mills - - - - , B.S.E.B. V/s. Green Rubber Ind. and Ors. - - - - , and Pawan Biscuits V/s. B.S.E.B., 2004 1 JCR 499 (Jhr) : 2004 (1) JLJR 596. Learned Counsel further submitted that certificate case also included the amount of demands for A.M.G. Charges and Maximum Demand Charges for the years 1991 -92 and 1992 -93, although the claims for these years were pending disposal. Therefore, he submitted that the certificate case was filed without ascertaining the legally payable amount by the petitioner. He lastly submitted that if the claims are correctly decided, the petitioner will be entitled for refund of certain amount.
(3.) MR . Rajesh Shankar, learned Counsel for the Board supported the order passed by the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer and submitted that the petitioner has been given remission of A.M. G. Charges and Maximum Demand Charges correctly. He further submitted that he is not in a position to say whether the claims of the petitioner under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement for the years 1991 -92 and 1992 -93 are still pending or not. However, he submitted that the matter can be remanded to the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer for taking fresh decision in accordance with law.;