IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2098 of 2007 HINDUSTAN CONCREATE & ALLIED INDUSTRIES Versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS ----------- 2 1.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner had made a claim upon the respondent Electricity Board to pay the differential amount of price variation regarding poles which were supplied by the petitioner to the Board. According to the petitioner there was a price variation clause prevalent in the purchase order and the variation in price forced the petitioner to claim the variation in terms of the clause. But by two cryptic communications dated 13.2.2004 and 8.1.2007 contained in annexures- 5 and 7 respectively the respondents authority have stated that the price variation bill claimed by the petitioner “is not acceptable”. Submission of learned counsel is that he has given a detailed representation to the chairman of the Bihar State Electricity Board which would be evident from annexure-6 but without assigning any reason or ground for rejection only two communications have been made to the petitioner. Since no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Electricity Board despite the writ pending for the last three years the Court does not have any assistance or ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner. The cryptic order also does not help the Court to understand as to what had weighed with the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. - 2 - In the stated background the Court is left with no option but to quash the annexures 5 and 7. The matter is remanded back to the Chairman who shall either himself or by a person authorized on his behalf shall pass a speaking order preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication or product ion of a copy of this order. This writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)