IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3550 of 2001 M/S BALMUKUND CONCAST LIMITED, a Company registered under the Companies Act, having its registered office at 702, Lav Kush Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna-1, through its Managing Director Ajay Kumar Jhunjhunwala, S/o Sri Lol Nath Jhunjhunwala, resident of M/33, Road No.25, S.K. Nagar, Patna. Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna Electrical Circle, R’ Block, Road No.1, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate Mr. Pranav Kumar,Advocate For Respondents: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate ---- 9. 3.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent- Bihar State Electricity Board. The writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order contained in letter No.804 dated 5.3.2001 issued by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna Electrical Circle, Patna asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 14,17,098/- within seven days, failing which the electric connection of the petitioner shall be disconnected. Earlier when the matter had come up on 28.3.2001 this Court, while granting time to learned counsel for the Electricity Board to file counter affidavit, directed that the electrical connection of the petitioner shall - 2 - not be disconnected in the light of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board points out on the basis of the second supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that during the pendency of the writ application by letter dated 24.5.2006 (Annexure-4) the petitioner had requested the authorities of the Board to permit it to make payment of the principal amount of Rs.14,17,098/-, provided the D.P.S. and interest debited to its account is waived in one lump sum. It was further stated in the said letter that the petitioner would make payment under protest subject to investigation and final order passed by the competent authority in the matter of dispute as contained in last paragraph of the office order of the Board. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner now submits that the said letter was not happily worded and the main intention of the petitioner was to make payment under protest, without prejudice to its rights and contentions raised in the present writ petition. The said contention does not appear to - 3 - be correct in view of what is stated therein as the protest itself has been made in terms of the last paragraph of the office order dated 12.4.2006 of the Board. The said office order has been annexed as Annexure-K to the second supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Board, the last paragraph of which provides that for getting the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme, the consumer has to make payment of the amount of disputed bill under protest and the competent authority will, thereafter, enquire into the disputed bill and dispose of the matter in accordance with rules and, if required, pass a reasoned order correcting the bill in question. It is, thus, evident from the provisions of the last paragraph of the One Time Settlement Scheme dated 12.4.2006 and also what is clearly stated in the letter dated 24.5.2006 of the petitioner that the payment was not under a general protest but in terms of the letter relating to One Time Settlement Scheme only. In the above circumstances, this Court is in agreement with the submission of learned - 4 - counsel for the Board that the writ petition itself has become infructuous and it is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )