VIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) On 19-5-1986 the appellant and the respondents entered into a contract whereby the respondent-Board agreed to supply electricity to the appellant's industrial unit. On 5-3-1993 the appellant sent a registered letter to the respondent, addressed to the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Bihar State Electricity Board, Sitamarhi, Bihar, informing them that although the appellant was sanctioned 60 HP load, they have reduced their load from 60 HP to 39 HP on account of some technical problem and therefore the Board may charge the appellant accordingly only for 39 HP load. The appellant also offered his willingness to sign any fresh agreement or amendment as required. The respondent-Board gave no response. However, it is not denied that for the disputed period, i.e., July 1993 to August 1997 the bills raised were on the basis of 30 HP load and were paid. For the months of July and August 1997, the appellant was billed for 60 HP load. The bill raised a demand of Rs. 3,22,235.46 on account of energy charges calculated for July and August 1997 on 60 HP load and deficit charges for the period July 1993 to June 1997 for differential load of 21 HP not charged earlier. On the appellant's protest and several reminders, he was informed by letter dated 5-3-1998 that though the installed load was 60 HP for the appellant, and the energy bills were accordingly issued upto March 1993, it was found that while opening the new ledger for the year 1993-1994, the Billing Clerk had by mistake carried forward and entered the load of appellant's plant at 39 HP, which was a clear error, and as there was a short billing the appellant was liable to satisfy the demand. Then followed an exchange of letters - the appellant insisting on the withdrawal of the demand and the respondent-Board insisting on satisfying the demand and standing by its correctness. It seems that there were several rounds of litigation, in the last of which the appellant was allowed by the High Court the liberty of making a representation to the Board, which the appellant did but unsuccessfully. This time the Board held that the registered letter dated 5-3-1993 was not received at all in the office of the Board. The appellant filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the demand which has been dismissed by the High Court. The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The principal controversy centers around the communication from the appellant dated 5-3-1993. In this context, it is pertinent to note Clause 16 of the contract dated 19-5-1986 signed between the parties which reads as under :