KARAM CHAND THAPAR Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the order dated 19.9.1995 passed by respondent no. 2, Annexure -1, whereby the claim of the petitioner under clause 13 of H.T. agreement for the financial years 1991 -92 and 1992 -93 was rejected.

(2.) THE petitioner applied for electrical service connection which was sanctioned by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Dhanbad. The petitioner also executed an agreement for supply of electrical energy. A copy of the standard form of agreement is Annexure -2. Respondent no. 1 also issued purported guidelines for decision on clause 13 of H.T. agreement vide notification no. 810 dated 29.7.1994, Annexure -5. In August, 1991 the workmen employed by the petitioner started 'GO SLOW' type of strike. One Samresh Singh M.L.A. along with number of agitated workmen entered into the Chambers at the Works Manager of the petitioner at about 3:30 P.M. on 31.8.1991 and slapped him and also assaulted other loyal personnel. A large section of workmen employed by the petitioner 'gheraoed' (wrongful confinement) its officers on 26.10.1991 from 10 A.M. till late afternoon of 28.10.1991. During 'gherao' the petitioner's security personnels were mercilessly beaten up by the workmen. They also threatened to 'gherao' again. The petitioner also lodged a First Information Report, copy of which was also sent to all the senior administrative authorities of the State. Neither the police nor the administrative authority extended any help to the petitioner. Even after lifting of 'gherao' on 28.10.91 there was no hope of industrial peace nor there was any substantial help from the law and order authority. The petitioner in the circumstances declared lock -out with effect from 29.10.91. Due to threat and violence by the workmen led by Samresh Singh, M.L.A. the lock out persisted till 31.3.1993. The petitioner had intimated respondent no. 2 vide its letter dated 30.11.93 that the factory had gone under the lock out for causes beyond its management control and hence the petitioner is entitled to proportionate reduction under clause 13 of H.T. agreement and requested for charging on actual consumption basis for the electric supply, Annexure -3. Similar request was also made vide letter dated 31.12.91, Annexure -3/A. Respondent no. 2 vide its letter dated 7.1.92 promised to consider the claim of the petitioner under clause 13 of H.T. agreement in due course and after expiry of financial year, Annexure -4. Respondent no. 2 heard the petitioner and departmental officers and passed order on 19.9.1995, Annexure -1, rejecting major portion of the petitioner's claim stating therein that the alleged circumstance of "GO SLOW", rioting and complete breakdown of law and order do not fall within the meaning of clause 13 of H.T. agreement. However, he observed that the consumer is entitled for relief proportionately for the interruption of electric energy for the period of 30 minutes and above as per Board notification dated 29.7.1994 for the period April, 1991 to 28.10.91 only.

(3.) A counter -affidavit has been filed stating therein that the petitioner is not entitled for proportionate reduction in demand charges pursuant to clause 13 of H.T. agreement. In exercise of power conferred under Section 79 of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 a fresh guideline was issued for settlement of claim under clause 13 of H.T. agreement whereby it has been decided to grant relief for interruption of electric energy for the period of 30 minutes or above, The lock out was against the mandatory provision of law and cannot be said causes beyond control of the petitioner. Lock out has not been mentioned as ground for granting remission under clause 13 of H.T. agreement. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bokaro Steel City by letter no. 4801 dated 13.12.91 intimated labour situation in the factory of the petitioner. The letter dated 30.11.93 sent by the petitioner with regard to lock out was not received. However, he admitted that letter dated 7.1.92 was sent by the respondent to the petitioner clarifying therein in detail. The petitioner is not entitled for reduction in terms of clause 13 of H.T. agreement.