IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1258 of 2007 M/S GURUNANAK RE-ROLLING MILLS, a Partnership Firm having its place of business at Industrial Estate, Baroon, Aurangabad through one of its Partners, Surjit Singh, S/O Sarab Singh, resident of Gurudwara Gali, P.O. & P.S. – Dehri, District – Rohtas. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Revenue Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad. 3. The Certificate Officer, Aurangabad. 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Gaya Circle West, Gaya. ----------- 05. 20.04.2010 Petitioner was running re-rolling mill in the district of Aurangabad and he entered into an agreement with the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board in terms of Annexure-1. Annexure-1 is dated 13.8.1981. Petitioner carried on his business and activity for almost a decade and started feeling certain difficulty in running the unit and decided to write to the Executive Engineer on 30.11.1993 seeking disconnection of electricity. The letter in question is Annexure-2 to the writ application. Despite the said notice which was stated to be a notice under Clause 9(a) of the agreement, no disconnection was effected. Petitioner continued to run his re-rolling mill business till 28.5.1998. That was the date when final disconnection was made. Disconnection of electricity was not the end of the matter for the petitioner because the respondent Electricity Board decided to institute a proceeding under Public Demand Recovery Act claiming payment of minimum guarantee charges in terms of the agreement. It is not in dispute that petitioner had continued to pay the current consumption on the bills which were raised upon him. 2 Petitioner filed his objection before the Certificate Officer and the Certificate Officer allowed his objection on the ground that since the agreement envisaged termination after completion of a year of notice, there was no relationship left between the petitioner and respondent Electricity Board. Any demand made after the date of the notice dated 30.11.1993 was de hors the agreement and therefore illegal. The order of the Certificate Officer became the subject matter of challenge under appeal before the Collector. The Collector after hearing the parties decided the mater vide his order dated 6.5.2006. The said order is Annexure-7 to the writ application, which is under challenge in the present writ application. Learned Collector has expressed his opinion that the liability of the petitioner remains till the date of disconnection but after the date of disconnection the respondents cannot charge any bill or claim any amount against the petitioner. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Certificate Officer to do the needful in the light of the decision. Obviously, the petitioner is not satisfied with the relief given to him and therefore, the present writ application. Petitioner’s primary contention is that in terms of Clause 9(a) of the agreement contained in Annexure-1, there is automatic cessation of the agreement on expiry of one year from the date registered notice is given. Annexure-2 is not disputed to the extent that a notice of the kind was given. If the respondent 3 authorities did not take cognizance of the same and did not carry out their part of responsibility, the petitioner cannot be saddled with any liability or payment more so of annual minimum guarantee since payment for current consumption has already been made. Counsel representing the respondent Electricity Board disputes certain facts. Their stand is that the notice contained in Annexure-2 was not categorical notice for disconnection. It was only a desire of the petitioner, may be to get disconnection effected in light of the various problems he was facing in running re-rolling mill. Petitioner has continued to consume power even after expiry of the period of notice dated 13.11.1993 till final disconnection was effected by the respondents. There are materials to show that the notice or the letter written by the petitioner to the respondents was tentative. In fact, even extension of notice period has been demanded or delayed from time to time. If that is the factual position then not only the initial notice contained in Annexure-2 would be deemed to be waived but it is also a fact that the petitioner was never serious about the notice contained in annexure-2. It is only much later that the petitioner finally gave his consent for disconnection and the respondent authorities effected disconnection. In view of the above stated position by no manner of interpretation Annexure-2 can be treated to be a notice for disconnection to take effect after expiry of one year time 4 period as envisaged under Clause 9 (a) of the agreement. The conduct of the petitioner itself has extended that period of notice and so long as petitioner continued to consume power on the supply made by the respondents, the liability of the petitioner to pay the bills not only of the current consumption but also of the annual minimum guarantee will have to be met. Respondents have done no wrong in claiming the same. It is, however, clarified that the learned Collector has categorically held that no bills are chargeable from the petitioner after the date of disconnection which is 28.5.1998 and the matter has been remanded back to the Certificate Officer with the above declaration. Certificate Officer would therefore be bound to delete that part of the claim with regard to 28.5.1998 to 28.5.1999 which was also included as part and parcel of outstanding dues against the petitioner. In so far as the liability of the petitioner till 27.5.1998 is concerned, the same still remains. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observation and clarification. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )