ROLLWELL ENTERPRISES Vs. B S E BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders of respondent No.2, General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer dated 25.2.96 and 11.6.93 as contained in Annexures 1 and 3, respectively have been impugned in this writ application. A further prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to grant proportionate remission to the petitioner on account of maximum demand charges and interest thereon.

(2.) The petitioner, a firm, is a consumer of High Tension Electricity under the respondents-Board. By order dated 25.2.95 respondent No. 2 allowed remission on account of Annual Minimum Guarantee charges but refused to grant any remission in respect of maximum demand charges for the periods 91-92, 1992-93 & 1993-94. The petitioner represented, after receipt of the aforesaid order, praying therein to allow remission on account of maximum demand charges but the said request has been turned down by respondent No.2 by his order as contained in Annexures 3.

(3.) Mr. Rajgarhia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petition submits that respondent No.2 has committed illegality in refusing remission in respect of maximum demand charges because non-supply of electricity should have been taken into account by him before refusing the said prayer. Advancing his argument, he submits that as because the Board was not in a position to supply the contract demand of 120 KV regularly, the petitioner was entitled for remission in view of the decisions reported in 1994 BBCJ 369 and 1994 (2) PLJR 858.