IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5927 of 2006 M/S SUPER INDUCTO STEEL LTD. A COMPANY IN CORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BALDEO SAHAY ROAD, KADAMKUAN, PATNA-800003, HAVING ITS FACTORY AT PURNIA, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI SHALIGRAM JAISWAL, SON OF LATE BANKEY BIHARI JAISWAL, RESIDENT OF SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, P.S.- SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DIST. SAHARSA :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, KOSI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AREA, SAHARSA. 3. THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PURNIA ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PURNIA. 4. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, PURNIA. 5. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (COM & REV) PURNIA ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PURNIA :---RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ratan Pd. Sinha, Advocate. For the Board : M/S. Vinay Kirti Singh & Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocates. ====== 3. 01.04.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”). 2. Petitioner is a high tension consumer of the Board in the light of the agreement executed by and between the petitioner and the Board dated 11th July, 1996, copy whereof is contained in Annexure-2 to this application. Perusal of the agreement indicates that contracted load is 3000 KVA. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that having consumed the power supplied by the Board during the year 1997-98-1998-99 application was made for grant of remission in terms of Clause (13) of the H.T. Agreement which was considered and granted under orders dated 06.09.2005, 2 Annexure-6 to this application. Perusal of the aforesaid order dated 06.09.2005, Annexure-6 would indicate that the claim of the petitioner for remission has been considered on the basis of the contracted load of 4400 KVA ignoring the contracted load of 3000 K.V.A. vide agreement dated 11.07.1996. It is further submitted that while granting remission under orders dated 06.09.2005 the authorities did not allow the petitioner benefit of disruption/inability to consume supply for less than 30 minutes. In terms of Clause (13) of the H.T. Agreement any disruption in supply or inability of the consumer to avail the supply for reasons beyond the control of the consumer remission is to be granted. 3. As the remission order proceeds on the basis of the contracted load of 4400 K.V.A. and disruption/inability of the petitioner to avail the supply for less than 30 minutes for reasons beyond his control having not been considered while granting remission under order dated 06.09.2005, Annexure-6 , I set aside the order dated 06.09.2005, Annexure-6 and remit back the matter to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Kosi Electric Supply Area, Saharsa to reconsider the request of the petitioner for grant of remission on the basis that the contracted load is 3000 K.V.A. and remission is to be allowed for any disruption/inability of the consumer to avail the supply for less than 30 3 minutes. The General Manager shall pass appropriate orders in the light of this order as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the General Manager. The claim of the petitioner for remission considered on the basis of the sanctioned load of 3000 KVA shall, however, be subject to the final orders of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8064 of 1999 in which petitioner has disputed that his load has been increased from 3000 to 4,400 KVA and interim order dated 27.9.1999 has been passed in his favour. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)