IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9734 of 2006 M/S Gaya Roller Flour Mills Pvt., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act through its Managing Director Arjun Prasad, son of Late Bhagwan Das, resident of Purani Godown, P.S. Kotwali, District- Gaya. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Bidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. Finance Controller (Revenue), Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 3. General Manager Cum Chief Engineer, Magadh Electric Supply Area, Gaya. 4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Gaya Electrical Circle (E), Gaya. 5. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Gaya Electric Supply Division-I, Manpur, District Gaya. 6. The Revenue Officer, Gaya Circle, Gaya 7. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Wazirganj, District Gaya. ….Respondents. ---------------------------------- 6. 01.12.2011 Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. The writ petition has been filed for setting aside part of the direction issued by the Finance Controller (Revenue), Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, dated 02.09.2005 by which it has been directed that the petitioner firm is liable to pay Minimum Guarantee Charges for the period of twelve months from 18th December, 1989. Learned senior counsel relied upon a document supplied by the Bihar State Electricity Board itself showing that the petitioner had not consumed any electricity from 2 December, 1998 till 29th March, 1991. He, therefore, submits that the order to that extent is erroneous. The learned counsel for the Electricity Board raises a preliminary objection. He submits that these are purely matters of fact which stand concluded by an order of this Court dated 15.09.1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1167 of 1994, reported in 1995 (2) PLJR 715. He submits that once issues of fact stand concluded and the writ petition being between the same parties, no fresh relief, based upon so-called different facts or fresh facts can be entertained. After going though the order dated 15.09.1995, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, this Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. There is a definite finding of fact that even after 26.04.1988 when the petitioner is said to have given a notice for disconnection, he continued to use electricity. This Court was considering the demand raised from the petitioner for payment of electric charges for the period October, 1988 to May 1991 and in that context the writ petition was finally dismissed and the petitioner was held liable to make payment with the only concession that he will not be liable 3 to pay any delayed payment surcharge and it was also left open to the petitioner to approach the proper authorities for fixation of surcharge and payment of dues. This Court, however, would like to observe that even after this order was passed, it is not clear as to under what circumstances the present order, which has been impugned, came to be passed which in fact gives relief substantially to the petitioner for the period for which he has been held liable to pay in as much as the present demand makes him liable to pay for 12 months from 18.12.1989 whereas earlier he was made liable to pay from October, 1988 to May 1991 which was upheld by this Court by the earlier order dated 15.09.1995. Be that as it may, this Court would not like to go into the said aspect since it relates to the merits of the case and for reasons discussed above, this Court is not inclined to go into the same. Since the matters of fact stand concluded in the earlier order passed by this Court, the petitioner, in the present proceeding, cannot reagitate the same matter trying to base his case on fresh facts which, may be, he has got from the Electricity Board records itself. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds that no relief can be granted since the mater is 4 covered by an earlier decision of this Court and the principle of constructive res judicata applies to the present proceeding. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. Saif/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)