- (1.) Petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 18-2-1997 passed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer (respondent No. 2) disposing of his claims under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement for the years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 and also the bills raised pursuant to the said order.
(2.) Mr. Mittal, appearing for the petitioner relies on the judgment of M/s Pawan Biscuit CO: Pvt. Ltd. (with analogous cases) v. Bihar State Electricity Board and others [2004 (1) JLJR 596]. Relying on Paragraph 10 of the said judgment, he submitted that petitioner is entitled to proportionate remission for interruptions below 30 minutes also. Further relying on Paragraph 19 of the said judgment, he submitted that the formula adopted by the General Manager is wrong. The petitioner was entitled to remission proportionate to Board's inability to supply electrical energy and the consumer's ability or inability to consume energy is irrelevant and immaterial for the purpose of calculating the proportionate remission to be granted to the petitioner. Regarding remission against the maximum demand charges, he relied on Paragraphs 12 to 16 of the said judgment. He further submitted that when thee maximum demand indicator was defective during the years 1993-94 and 1994-95, minimum base charge was levied, against which also the petitioner is entitled to remission to the extent of Board's inability to supply electricity i.e. the interruptions.
(3.) Distinguishing the case of Ms. Rollwell Enterprises v. B.S.E. Board [(1996) 1 BLJR 641] relied on by Mr. Rajesh Shankar, appearing for the Board, Mr. Mittal submitted that in the said case, it was found that the contract demand of the consumer exceeded in each month during the year, whereas in the present case, only in the month of February, 1996, the maximum demand exceeded for which the Board has already charged. Relying on the Division Bench judgment of Dumraon Textiles Limited v. The Bihar State Electricity Board [1994 (2) PLJR 858], Mr. Mittal submitted that even if no bill has been raised charging annual minimum guarantee charges, the remission under the maximum demand charges has to be allowed. 3-A. Mr. Rajesh Shankar, appearing for the Board, tried to support the impugned order saying that the General Manager was bound to follow the Circulars of the Board. He further submitted that petitioner's claim for strike period has rightly been rejected as petitioner did not produce any reliable proof in support of such claim.;