IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2874 of 2004 M/s Mahua Co-operative Cold Storage Ltd., a registered Co-operative Society having its works at Mirzanagar, District Vaishali and registered office at Industrial Estate, Hajipur, through its Manager Basudeo Prasad Singh son of late Lachchan Singh, resident of at & P.O. Mirzanagar, District Vaishali at Hajipur ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board a body incorporated under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 having its Head office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman. 2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Tirhut Area Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial & Revenue) Electric Supply Circle, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Hajipur, Vaishali. 5. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electrical Supply Subdivision, Mahua, District Vaishali. 6. The Additional Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Section Raja Paker, Vaishali. --- Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate. For the B.S.E.B. : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh with Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocates. ***** 3/ 25-02-2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising a grievance against an order, contained in letter dated 16.09.2003 (Annexure-4), passed by General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Tirhut Area, Muzaffarpur, whereby the claim raised on behalf of the petitioner in terms of Clause-13 of H.T. agreement for the financial year 2000-01 & 2001-02 has been rejected. 3. The factual matrix in the present case is not in much controversy. Admittedly, the petitioner entered 2 into an agreement dated 15.01.1979 with respondent- Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) for supply of 100 KVA electricity under High Tension Industrial Service connection. A copy of the format of H.T. agreement has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Clause-13 of the agreement reads as follows:- “13.- If at any time the consumer is prevented from receiving or using the electrical energy to be supplied under this agreement either in whole or in part due to strikes, riots, fire, floods, explosions, act of God or any other case reasonably beyond control or if the Board is prevented from supplying or unable to supply such electrical energy owing to any or all of the causes mentioned above then the demand charge and guaranteed energy charge set out in the Schedule shall be reduced in proportion to the ability of the consumer to take or the Board to supply such power and the decision of the Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, in this respect shall be final. Note- The term Chief Engineer includes Additional Chief Engineer for the Area concerned.” 4. According to the petitioner there was frequent power failure and erratic supply of electricity during the year 2000-01 & 2001-02. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get remission in terms of Clause-13 of the agreement regarding payment of Annual Minimum 3 Guaranteed charges (hereinafter referred as “AMG” in short). It is also not in dispute that towards A.M.G. bill of the year 2000-01, the petitioner had deposited 50% of bill. However, towards A.M.G. Bill for the year 2001-02 to the tune of Rs. 4, 07,100/-, no amount has been deposited by the petitioner with the respondent Electricity Board. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Clause-13 of the agreement as also in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of M/s Barauni Carbons Pvt. Ltd. Begusarai Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and others, reported in 2003(2) PLJR 519, the respondent-General Manager was obliged to consider the claim of the petitioner on merit. But, in his submission the claim of the petitioner has been rejected merely on certain technical grounds and merit has not been gone into. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-4, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed his reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf. It is also submitted that under relevant notification the petitioner was obliged to deposit at least 50% of the A.M.G. Bill and the claim was required to be made within the prescribed time in the proper format on fulfillment of certain other conditions and, therefore, in his submission the impugned 4 order at Annexure-4, cannot be faulted. 7. After having heard the parties and on consideration of their submissions, this Court finds that the respondent General-Manager-cum-Chief Engineer while passing the impugned order (Annexure-4), has not gone into the merit of the claim raised on behalf of the petitioner, rather on certain technical grounds the claim has been rejected. I am of the considered opinion that on fulfillment of certain conditions by the petitioner, the matter is required to be examined by the competent authority on merit. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is hereby directed to deposit 50% of A.M.G. bill to the tune of Rs. 4,07,100/- of the year 2001-02 within a period of six weeks from today. If such a deposit is made, the respondent- General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer shall be obliged to consider the claim made by the petitioner for remission of A.M.G. Bill for the year 2000-01 and 2001-02. Admittedly 50% amount of A.M.G. Bill of the year 2000-01 has already been deposited by the petitioner. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order, as contained in Ennexure-4, passed by General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Tirhut Area, Muzaffarpur, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent- General 5 Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, for a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. If the deposit, as indicated above, is made by the petitioner and he appears before the respondent- General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, with a detailed representation along with a certified copy of this order within the time prescribed by this Court, then he shall be obliged to decide the case of the petitioner on merit as indicated above, within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. 10. It goes without saying that if the petitioner does not deposit the amount within the time prescribed and does not appear before the respondent- General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, with the representation and a certified copy of this order, then it shall be construed that this writ petition stood finally rejected by this Court and thereafter, the authority shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of, but there shall be no order as to costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)