PATRONS (INDIA) ENTERPRISES Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) passed by the learned Writ Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10495 of 2002, the writ-petitioner has preferred this Intra-Court appeal.

(2.) The facts in brief are not in dispute. The appellant is running a rolling mill. Initially, he entered into a HT agreement with the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board') 2 on 26/3/1984 for 125 KVA of contract demand. On his request, the contract demand was extended to 300 KVA. The appellant executed a fresh agreement dtd. 12/12/1995 and when he requested once again to sanction additional load of 235 KVA raising contract demand from 300 KVA to 535 KVA a third agreement dtd. 26/6/1999 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application came to be executed. A glance over the HT agreement which is in the nature of a standard form agreement it would appear that the Board agreed to supply and the appellant/consumer agreed to take energy in bulk at the premises as fully described in the Schedule appended at the foot of the agreement. Clause 8, 9 and 12 of the agreement are relevant clauses on which the petitioner has raised an issue and, therefore, those clauses are quoted hereunder for a ready reference:-

(3.) It is not in dispute that every time when the contract demand was increased a fresh agreement has been executed. Dispute arose when the petitioner-appellant vide letter dtd. 8/9/2000 sent a notice in terms of Clause 9(a) of the agreement by registered post to the respondent Superintending Engineer requesting him to determine 4 the agreement dtd. 26/6/1999 on the expiry of 12 calendar months from the date of receipt of the notice. The Board however disconnected the electric line of the appellant on 23/7/2001 when the petitioner could not pay the bills in the months of May and June, 2001. The Board continued to raise monthly bills for the months of July and August, 2001 which were at 75% of the contract demand, being the minimum chargeable irrespective of consumption being nil. The appellant is contesting the drawing of bills for the period after 7/9/2001 as according to him on expiry of 12 months from the date of notice, the HT agreement stood terminated and no bill could have been raised after 7/9/2001. Contention of the writ- petitioner did not find favour with the learned Writ Court.