JAYANTI INDUSTRIES Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court is a partnership firm which was running an industrial unit, manufacturing plastic containers under ire name of M/s. Jayanti Industries. THE petitioner firm has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the Board in disconnecting the high tension electrical connection given to its unit on 15.7.2000 for non-payment of dues and in raising a demand for Rs. 6,38,754,54 paise vide letter No. 779/Rev, dated 6.9.2001 issued by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Muzaffarpur Circle, Muzaffarpur. According to the petitioner, the disconnection of its electrical line was illegal because it was effected without giving the firm seven clear days notice and the demand raised by the Superintending Engineer was also illegal, invalid and unenforceable against the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case are brief and without any controversy. THE petitioner firm had an industrial unit manufacturing plastic containers from before. In the year 1997 the firm undertook expansion of the unit. On 17.4.1998 it entered into a high tension agreement with the Board with the contract demand of 150 KVA. THE supply of electricity under the agreement commenced from 27.5.1998. It is significant to note here that in terms of the Industrial Policy, 1995 of the State Government and the circular issued by the Board in pursuance to the Industrial Policy the petitioner firm was granted exemption from payment of Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges.

(3.) THIS is exactly what happened in this case. The Board denied the petitioner's unit any further exemption from payment of A.M.G. charges and the demand raised by the Board mainly represents, apart from the dues standing at the time of disconnection, guaranteed energy charges and guaranteed demand charges for the remaining period of the contract as would be evident from the statement of account enclosed with the impugned letter at Annexure-18. The statement in substance shows the petitioner's account as on the date (29.6.2000) the petitioner gave the termination notice PLUS the A.M.G. charges for the one year remaining period of the contract. THIS latter the petitioner had not bargained for but as noted above the petitioner proceeded in this matter on a completely incorrect premise.