Letters Patent Appeal No.1258 OF 2002 Against the order dated 27.9.2002 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C.No. 11451 of 2001. ----------- THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD----------------(Appellant) Versus 1. SHREE KISHANGANJ FLOUR MILLS (PVT.) LTD., 21, BAHADURGANJ ROAD, P.S. KISHANGANJ ROAD, TOWN AND DISTRICT KISHANGANJ THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, GOVIND LALA AGRAWALA. -------- RESPONDENT 2. THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PURNEA ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PURNEA. 3. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGHINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PURNEA. 4. THE ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUPPLY SUBDIVISION, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KISHANGANJ. 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, KISI AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, SAHARSA. ----PERFORMA RESPONDENTS. --------------- For the appellant: : M/s. Vinay Kriti Singh, Advocate Vijay Kumar Verma For the Respondent : Mr. S.S. Rekhi, Advocate. ---------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN Prasad & Ranjan, JJ: Bihar State Electricity Board aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2002 passed by the Learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 11451 of 2001, has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Shree Kishanganj Flour Mills (Pvt) (hereinafter referred to as the writ-petitioner) filed C.W.J.C. No. 15047 of 2001 (Shree - 2 - Kishanganj Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board & ors) challenging the order dated 11.9.2001 passed by the General manager-cum-Chief Engineer. It also filed C.W.J.C. No. 11451 of 2001 (Shree Kishanganj Flour Mills(Pvt) Ltd. Vs Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors) , inter-alia praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or for any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board to restore the electricity supply and not to disturb or disconnect the same till the dispute referred to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Kosi Area, is decided. Both the writ applications were considered together by a learned Single Judge by order dated 27.9.2002. The learned Single Judge set aside the order of the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer dated 11.9.2001 and remitted the matter back to him for reconsideration of the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in the judgment. So far as the C.W.J.C.No. 11451 of 2001 is concerned, same has been allowed inter- alia observing that the writ petitioner will not be liable for payment of any charges for the period commencing from the date of disconnection to the date of restoration of its electricity line. The Bihar State Electricity Board aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15047 of 2001 preferred L.P.A. No.1248 of 2002 and the same has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 9.12.2002. The order - 3 - passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11451 of 2001 has been assailed in the present appeal. It is admitted position that notice for disconnection under section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act is dated 3rd of August 2001 which was despatched on 10th of August 2001 and it was received by the writ petitioner on 10.8.2001, whereas the line was disconnected on 14.8.2001, i.e the disconnection was effected before the expiry of 7 clear days from the date of receipt of the disconnection notice. The writ petitioner has challenged the disconnection of electricity supply on the ground that the notice given for disconnection did not conform to the requirement of section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act as the line was disconnected without giving 7 days clear notice. This argument found favour with the learned Single Judge. The Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) attempted to justify the disconnection also on the basis of the earlier notices dated 15.12.2000 and 1.2.2001. In view of the many events taking place in between, this argument did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. In this connection the learned Single Judge has observed as follows: “It is to be seen that the notices relied upon by the Board were issued in December, 2000 and February, 2001, that is to say, more than six months before the date of disconnection. It may further be noted that after the issuance of the two notices an agreement was arrived at and executed - 4 - between the petitioner and the Board on 28.2.2001 in connection with the dues under the two notices. In terms of the agreement, the petitioner was required to pay the dues in instalments. The first instalment was paid at the time of execution of the agreement and the future instalments were paid by the petitioner by handing over post-dated cheques. The agreement further stipulated payment of compensatory charge @ of 2% which were to form part of the future monthly bills. It is an admitted position that the Board had received the post-dated cheques from the petitioner in terms of the agreement and all the cheques on being presented were duly credited to Board’s account in time.” At the out set Mr. Rekhi appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 submits that when the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order of this court has been dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 9.12.2002 passed in L.P.A.No.1248 of 2002, this appeal deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. This argument of Mr. Rekhi has been noted only to be rejected. As stated earlier, by a common order dated 27.9.2002, the learned Single Judge has disposed of two writ applications, viz. C.W.J.C.No.15047 of 2001 and C.W.J.C.No.11451 of 2001. Both the writ applications involved different causes and in that view of the matter, the order passed in L.P.A.No.1248 of 2002 arising out of an order passed in C.W.J.C.No.15047 of 2001 shall have no baring at all so far as this appeal is concerned. Mr. Vinay Kriti Singh appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that issuance of notice dated 3.8.2001 shall - 5 - not supersede the earlier notices dated 15.12.2000 and 1.2.2001 and if this is taken into account it cannot be said that the line has been disconnected before the expiry of seven clear days notice. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of M/s Jayanti Industries Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors,2002 (4) PLJR 400 and our attention has been drawn to paragraph 11 of the Judgment which is as follows: “I am unable to accept the submission. It is not the case of the petitioner that payment was made of the dues demanded by the notice, dated 6.6.2000. It is also not the position that the earlier notice of 6.6.2000 had become too old or stale to be given effect to on 15.7.2001. In these circumstances it cannot be contended that the notice dated 6.6.2000 must be deemed to be superseded by the issuance of the subsequent notices.” Mr. Rekhi however, submits that the earlier notices dated 15.12.2000 and 1.2.2001 are absolutely stale as the disconnection was affected on 14th of August 2001. He also submits that between 15.12.2000 and 1.2.2001 and the date of disconnection several events have taken place and in fact the writ petitioner had paid dues in installments which have been referred in paragraph 37 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge stated above. Having appreciated the rival submissions, we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh and the decision relied on is clearly distinguishable.Notices relied upon by the - 6 - Board are dated 15.12.2000 and 1.2.2001 whereas the disconnection has been affected on 14.8.2001. Thus there is time lag between the notices and the disconnection which was not in the case of M/s Jayanti Industries (Supra). Further in between the aforesaid date of notices and the notice dated 3.8.2001 writ- petitioner has made payments in instalments and in fact handed over post- dated cheques which were duly credited. In the face of it, it is difficult to disagree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that earlier notices would not revive. In view of what we have found, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly, but without any order as to cost. Patna High Court The 4th Dec.2008. Rahman/NAFR (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)