AMALGAMATED DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 in this application is an industrial consumer of electrical energy; it gets supply from the Bihar State Electricity Board (the Board', for short) in terms of the High Tension Agreement, in the statutory form, which the petitioner had been obliged to execute as a pre-condition for getting its electrical connection. In this application it questions the right of the Board to demand the minimum guaranteed charges in terms of clause 4 of the agreement and seeks an appropriate writ or direction quashing the annual minimum guarantee bills as contained in Annexure 3 series. It also seeks quashing of the disconnection notice, dated 12-11-1984, a photo copy of which is to be found at Annexure-5, served on it for non-payment of the minimum guarantee bills.

(2.) This is an application of the year, 1986; it has been awaiting hearing by this Court for the past seven years. In the mean while, in several other cases, this Court and the Supreme Court have had occasions to make pronouncements on this question and the law relating to the minimum guaranteed charges now rests with the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. M/ s. Dhanawat Rice Oil Mills, AIR 1989 SC 1030. In this decision the Supreme Court laid down that any interruption in the supply of electricity occasioned by tripping', load shedding or power cut' or even on account of shortage in generation of electricity may entitle the consumer to make a claim for proportionate reduction (in terms of clause 13 of the statutory agreement), but would not affect the Board's right to demand and realise minimum guaranteed charges in terms of clause 4 of the agreement.

(3.) At first glance this application appeared fully covered by the aforesaid Supreme Court. But Mr. Ashok Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued. otherwise. He was not satisfied with the remedy of making a claim before the Chief Engineer of the Board for proportionate reduction for the period of non-supply of electricity in terms of clause 13 of the agreement. Mr. Sen submitted that if he could successfully show that the Board had no legal right to make a demand for the minimum guaranteed charges as stipulated in clause 4 of the agreement then the question of any proportionate reduction in terms of Clause 13 would not arise. Mr. Sen contended that the materials brought on record of this case fully established that the Board failed to fulfil the conditions on which its right to realise the minimum guaranteed charges, as envisaged under clause 4 of the statutory agreement, was founded and, hence, in the facts and circumstances of this case the action of the Board in making a demand for annual minimum guaranteed charges was arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of the statute as also the provision of the statutory agreement.