CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5304 OF 1996 With CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8360 OF 1996 -------- A K Tripathi, J. In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ------- In CWJC No. 5304 of 1996 M/S Bihar Fasteners Limited ……………… Petitioner Versus Bihar State Electricity Board and ors ………….. Respondents In CWJC No. 8360 of 1996 M/S Riga Sugar Company Limited ………….. Petitioner Versus Bihar State Electricity Board and ors ………… Respondents ------ In CWJC No.5304 of 1996 For the petitioner: M/S Raj Kishore Prasad, Tej Bahadur Roy and Sunil Kumar Thakur. In CWJC No. 8360 of 1996 For the petitioner: M/S. Y V Giri, Raj Kishore Prasad and Tej Bahadur Roy. For the Board (in both the cases): M/S Vinay Kirti Singh and Vijay Kumar Verma. P R E S E N T THE HON`BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ***** Since a common question of law has been raised in both the writ applications, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Both the petitioners are high tension consumers and have challenged the two orders passed by the General Manager cum Chief Engineer of the concerned area of the Electricity Board which are contained in annexure-9 dated 22.9.1995 and annexure-4 dated - 2 - 29.7.1996 respectively. 3. The short and precise submission which has been made at the bar is that on a wrong interpretation given to clause 13 of the high tension agreement appropriate relief in the bills raised by the Electricity Board by way of remission for tripping has not been granted by the competent authority. No doubt some remission has been allowed in favour of the petitioners but remission for disruption below 30 minutes has been ignored and remission with regard to maximum demand also has not been accepted. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that this kind of decisions and the notification have been subject-matter of various disputes and the Court on various occasions has given its ruling on the issue. Irrespective of the history of the litigation the issue has been put to rest in a recent decision which is the case of Rishi Cement Company Ltd and etc. vs. B.S.E.Board & others, AIR 2002 Jhar 1. 4. While dealing with notification No. 810 dated 29.7.1994 the Court came to the conclusion that remission has to be allowed even for interruption below 30 minutes. Not only this, proportionate remission in AMG and M D charges have to be given in such interruption. 5. Keeping in mind the decision rendered by a Bench of this Court in Rishi Cement Company Ltd. both the applications are allowed. The impugned orders contained in annexures 9 and 4 of the two writ applications stand quashed and the matter is remanded back - 3 - to the concerned General Manager cum Chief Engineer. They shall remark the liability of the concerned consumer based on the recalculation to be made in this regard. Since these are old disputes it will be in the interest of the parties that a final decision is taken at the earliest and the matter brought to rest provided the decision satisfies the consumers in this regard. 6. The writ applications are allowed to the extent indicated above. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court: The 10th December, 2008. NAFR (R K Pathak)