BANARSILAL JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was preferred by the petitioner against the decision of General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, South Bihar and Chhota nagpur Area Electricity Board, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the General Manager), communicated vide letter dated 22nd July, 1999, whereby and whereunder, he refused to decide and settle the claim for relief under Clause 13 of H.T. agreement for the financial years 1993-94 to 1997-98.The petitioner has also challenged the legality and propriety of Board's decision contained in Notification No.810 dated 29th July, 1994, wherein certain guidelines laid down under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (shortly referred to as the Act), prescribing the procedure and mode in which settlement of claim to be made under Clause 13 of the H.T. agreement.

(2.) It is not necessary to discuss all the facts, as the claim under Clause 13 has been rejected not on merit, but on technical ground in the light of Board's Notification dated 29th July, 1994.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner earlier preferred writ petition, CWJC No.1184 of 1995 (R) - (Banarsi Lal Jhunjhunwala v. BSEB) against the bill so far it relates to Annual Minimum Guarantee (A.M.G.) charges for the period 1994-95. This Court, taking into consideration the fact that claim under Clause 13 had already been preferred, by its order dated 6th December, 95 disposed of the writ petition with direction to the authority to consider the claim and to decide the same by reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioners, within a month. In respect to period 1995-96, a writ petition, CWJC No.86 of 1997 (R) was preferred, which was disposed of on 16th January, 1997, wherein the Court allowed the petitioner to make a fresh representation within fifteen days to the General Manager who, in his turn, was directed to dispose of the same by a speaking order with reason, within three weeks.By interim order, the Court also directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner, if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within two weeks and go on paying all the current charges.Another writ petition, CWJC No.1996 of 1997 (R) was also preferred by the petitioner against the bill for the financial year 1996-97 and a Bench of this Court vide order dated 21st May, 1998, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner filed claim for remission under Clause 13 on 15th May, 1997, passed the following orders :