UDYOG KENDRA Vs. MITHILA AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to or pursuant to or in furtherence of the letter dated 21-5-1982 issued by the Assistant Eletrical Engineer (respondent No. 4) as contained in Annexute '4' to the writ application as also the letter dated 17-8-1982 passed by the same authority as contained in Annexure '6' to the writ application. By reason of the aforementioned letters the petitioner was informed that it has to pay Rs. 89,060.49 p. by way of was arrears, failing whereof its electrical connection would be disconnected.

(2.) According to the petitioner it had not been receiving regular supply of electrical energy and there had been occasions when non-supply of electrical energy by way of tripping etc. took place. The petitioner contended that as respondent Mithila Area Electricity Board failed to supply the electrical energy constantly the annual minimum guarantee charges are not payable. The petitioner. has further contended that if the annual minimum guarantee charges are not payable, consequently the delayed payment surcharge will also not be payable. It isadmitted that the petitioner has failed a representation before the General Manager-cum Chief Engineer, Mithila Area Electricity Board in terms of clause 13 of the agreement. In Jai Bharat Udyog v. Bihar State Electricity Board and others, C. W. J. C. No. 254 of 1984 a Bench of this Court has held that if the Bihar State Electricity Board fails to supply electrical energy for a period of 6 hours ic a day, they will not be entitled to recover the annual minimum guarantee charges. This aspect of the matter has again been considered in the case of Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. v. Bihar Electricity Board and others, 1988 BLT 428 wherein the aforementioned decision of the Division Bench has been clarified to mean that the Bihar State Electricity Board must supply the electrical energy for a period of six hours when the petitioner runs its factory or otherwise requires the supply of electrical energy. However, the Supreme Court recently in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and another v. Dhanawat Rice Mills, 1989 Judgment Today 425 : (1989) 1 SCC 452 : (1989) 1 BLJ 520 (SC) held that the consumer shall be entitled to a proportionate deduction of minimum guarantee charges if the Bihar State Electricity Board is unable to supply electric energy in terms of the agreement by way of trippings etc.

(3.) By order dated 22-9-1982 a Bench of this Court at the time of admission observed as follows: "It is, however, made perfectly clear that the pendency of this writ application in this Court shall not stand in the way of the Arbitrator deciding the matter in accordance with law as soon as possible."