ROLWELL ENTERPRISES Vs. B.S.E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 22.1.96 passed in CWJC No. 2611/95 (R) where by the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and held that the appellant was rightly not allowed remission in the maximum demand charges so claimed by the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant is as High Tension consumer under the respondents -Board. The appellant made a claim before the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer for the remission in the Annual Minimum Guarantee charges for different years. The General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer considered the claim of the appellant and found that during 1991 -92 there was some interruption in the supply of electricity and, as such, allowed remission for the aforesaid year and also for the years 1992 -93 and 1993 -94. However, the claim of the appellant for remission in maximum demand charges was disallowed on the ground that the appellant exceeded its contract demand in each month during the aforesaid period. The claim of the appellant was disposed of by passing a reasoned order which was challenged by the appellant in the aforementioned writ petition.

(3.) MR . S.N. Rajgarhia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as being contrary to law settled by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Suprabhat Steels Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. 1994 BBCJ 369 and also a decision reported in 1996 BBCJ, 508. Learned counsel submitted that although respondent No. 2, the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer allowed proportionate remission to the extent of hours of non -supply on account of Annual Minimum Guarantee charges but illegally refused to give remission in maximum demand charges. Learned counsel further submitted that a consumer is entitled under certain circumstances to claim remission both in Annual Minimum Guarantee charges and Maximum demand charges.