M/S GURUNANAK RE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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. 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.

(2.) 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 matter vide his order dated 6.5.2006. The said order is Annexure-7 to 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.

(3.) 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 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.