IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5321 of 2006 M/S PRAKASH ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERD OFFICE AT 6 KRISHNA PRAKASH ROAD, GAYA, THOUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAMAN PRAKASH SARAOGI SON OF LATE SATYA NARAYAN SARAOGI, RESIDENT OF 6 K.P. ROAD, GAYA. 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 THORUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER CUM CHIEF ENGINEER, MAGADH AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, MAGADH ELECTRIC SUPPLY AREA, GAYA. 4. THE ELECTRICIAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GAYA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CIRCLE, GAYA. 5. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (COMMERCE AND REVENUE) ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, GAYA (RURAL), GAYA. 6. THE ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (REVENUE), GAYA ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, GAYA. For the petitioner : Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Advovcate. For the Board : M/s Vinay Kirti Singh, Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocates. ----------- 03. 17.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Electricity Board(hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. Petitioner is high tension consumer of the Board. He is aggrieved by the order dated 21.2.2006, Annexures-3, 4, whereunder his claim for remission under Clause-13 of the HT agreement, Annexure-1 for the years 1997-98, 1998-99 has been rejected stating that remission for interruption of supply for less than 30 minutes is not permissible. In this connection, it is agreed at the Bar that in the light of Clause-13 of the HT agreement, Annexure-1 remission is to be allowed to the consumer for failure to supply or using the energy - 2 - supplied on account of circumstances beyond the control of the Board or the consumer. Duration of interruption for less than 10 minutes is also to be accounted for while considering the claim for remission under Clause-13 of the HT agreement. 3. From paragraph-1 of the finding recorded in the two orders, it is evident that the General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Magadh Electric Supply Area while considering the case of the petitioner for remission has not granted the petitioner remission for interruption, which was for less than 30 minutes in the light of the notification of the Board dated 29.7.1994, such notification of the Board appears to be in contravention of Clause-13 of the HT agreement. Accordingly, the two impugned orders dated 21.2.2006, Annexures-3, 4 which has been passed in erroneous consideration of the notification of the Board dated 29.7.1994 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Magadh Electric Supply Area to decide afresh the claim of the petitioner for remission for the years 1997-98, 1998-99 granting him benefit of every interruption which may be for a minute or more. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)