IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.7736 OF 2009 SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH VERSUS (1) THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,(2) THE CHAIRMAN, BSEB, PATNA, (3) THE CHIEF ENGINEER, RURAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY VIDHUT BHAWAN (4) THE ELECTRICAL SE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CIRCLE, GAYA (5) THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELASTIC SUPPLY CIRCLE, GAYA AND (6) THE ACCOUNTANT OFFICER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY CIRCLE, GAYA. ----------- 2 10.07.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner prays for quashing of order contained in memo no. 546 dated 5.2.2009, passed by respondent no.4, whereby he has directed the Branch Manager, Indian Bank Kocharh Branch camp at Barun, district Aurangabad to forfeit petitioner’s bank guarantee for Rural Feeder Nawner (Barun) amounting to Rs. 1,88,516/- and transfer the same in the account of Bihar State Electricity Board (BSEB), Gaya. As per the deed of agreement for rural area franchisee between Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Gaya and the petitioner (annexure 2),the latter was granted franchise of Nawner, Barun on 15.11.2006. According to the agreement, the petitioner was to distribute the electricity bill to the ultimate consumers, collect the revenue, attend the fuse-on call and minor LT breakdown and other works as stipulated under Rural Area Franchisee Document & L.O.I. with effect from 15.11.2006 to 14.1.2007. However, memo no. 546 dated 5.2.2009 was issued forfeiting the amount of bank guarantee for Rural Feeder Nawner (Barun). Furthermore, respondent no. 4 vide letter no. 3911 dated 19.12.2007 issued notice as to why the agreement be not terminated and security money be forfeited as revenue collection in previous year was less than 35 percent. The petitioner submits that in spite of a number of problems, he made - 2 - good collection from 27 villages spread over 30 kilometers. Apart from this, the petitioner had to face anger of villagers in course of distributing electric bills and collection of revenue on account of scarcity of LT wire, electric poles, running transformers etc. Petitioner submits that thousands of rupees of electric bills due against some villages had been reported to the Board in time but no steps for its recovery was taken. The petitioner further submits that he has not been paid commission though he is entitled for it in view of terms and conditions of the agreement. The learned counsel for the Board submits that as per clause 2.3 of the agreement, it is the sole discretion of the BSEB either to extend the franchisee period for a year or revoke or shorten the same. Moreso, the petitioner cannot get the extension of franchisee by way of right. He also submits that there is an arbitration clause in case of any monetary dispute. Having heard the parties and going through the materials on record, this court is not persuaded to interfere with order of termination of franchisee of the petitioner. However, it will be open for him to invoke arbitration clause. The petitioner is at liberty to file representation before the Chief Engineer, Rural Electricity Supply, Vidhut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, respondent no.3 within four weeks which will be disposed of in accordance with law. Till then the bank guarantee amount of Rs.3,88,816/- would not be transferred as directed in annexure 1. Shashi (S. P. Singh, J.)