IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3364 of 2006 M/S KRISHNA CEMENT A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HEAD TRADERS, PANI TANKI ROAD, DEHRI-ON-SONE THROUGH KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA, PARTNER, SON OF LATE RAM LAKHAN RAM GUPTA R/O- IDGAHI, P.S. DEHRI-ON-SONE, DISTRICT- ROHTAS, BIHAR :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER. 3. THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROHTAS ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, SASARAM, BIHAR. 4. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (COMMERCIAL AND REVENUE), ROHTAS ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, SASARAM, BIHAR. 5. THE ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, SASARAM, BIHAR :---RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the B.S.E.B : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate. Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocate. 3. 23.02.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 26.02.2005 and 11.11.2005, Annexues-11 and 14, whereunder the concern has been directed to make payment of Rs. 3,37,552.02 paisa and Rs. 8,38,894.21 paisa towards the consumption of electrical energy, Monthly minimum and Annual guarantee charges. In response to such prayer counsel for the Board has informed this Court that the aforesaid amount is being recovered from the petitioner by initiating certificate proceeding. Petitioner has also filed his objection under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act which is still pending. Let the Certificate Officer consider the objection of the petitioner raised in regard to the aforesaid two notices in accordance with law. - 2 - 3. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the energy bill bearing no. 2561 dated 8.9.2003, Annexure-5, whereunder the concern has been asked to pay energy charges of Rs. 26,455.89 paisa and Rs. 2,50,998.80 paisa. Petitioner disputes the amount of Rs. 2,50,998.80 paisa as according to learned counsel aforesaid amount is not payable by the concern as the H.T. agreement was entered into by and between the petitioner and the Board on 19.06.2003. 4. Aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is required to be considered in the light of the request of the petitioner for bulk supply (high tension load) which was sanctioned by the Board under letter no. 544 dated 25.02.2003, Annexure-1. Perusal of the sanction order dated 25.02.2003, Annexure-1 clearly indicates that bulk supply (high tension load) was sanctioned to the petitioner with effect from August, 2002. 5. In my opinion, therefore, the Board is quite competent to raise bills for the bulk supply (high tension load) with effect from August, 2002. I do not see any illegality in the bill dated 08.09.2003, Annexure-5. 6. Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the benefit entitled to a high tension consumer was given to the petitioner with effect from June, 2003 and thereafter and as the benefit admissible to high tension consumer was not made available to the petitioner with - 3 - effect from August, 2002, he is not required to pay annual minimum guarantee charges from August, 2002 until June, 2003. 7. Let aforesaid aspect of the matter be considered by the General Manager, Magadh Area Board while disposing of A.M.G. claim of the petitioner for the year 2003-04 contained in Annexure-9 and for the year 2004-05, contained in Annexure-10 and 10/A to this writ petition in accordance with law, after condoning the delay of 15 days in filing the two claims within two months of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)