PETITIONER: BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. RESPONDENT: M/S BIJAY MINING COMPANY LTD. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/07/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J) CITATION: JT 1996 (7) 208 1996 SCALE (5)686 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises against the order
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna, dated
September 21, 1993 made in CWJA No.2811/93. Admittedly the
respondent had entered into an agreement with the appellant
Board for supply of electricity pursuant to which the
respondent was required to pay the minimum guarantee
charges. When a bill was issued, it would appear that the
respondent had objected to the minimum guarantee bill on the
ground that there was erratic supply of electricity and the
Board unable to supply the required quantity of the
electricity. Consequently the respondent to not liable to
pay the minimum guarantee under the contract the High Court
allowed the writ petition finding that on an earlier
occasion the High Court in CWJC No.3642/92 had disposed of
writ petitions on February 25, 1923 directing the Board to
raise fresh bill giving proportionate reduction in the
annual minimum guarantee charges, but the same not being
complied with it is not open to the Board to give the bill
as impugned in the writ petition.
It is seen that clause 13 of the agreement provides a
under:
“13. – if at any time the consumer
is prevented from receiving or
using the electrical energy to be
supplied under this agreement
either in whole, or in part due to
strike, riots, fire, floods,
explosions, act of God or any other
case reasonably beyond control or
if the Board is prevented from
supplying or unable to supply such
electrical energy owing to any or
all of the cause mentioned above
than the demand charge and
guaranteed, energy charge set out
in the Schedule shall be reduced
in proportion to the ability of the
consumer to take or the Board to
supply such power and the decision
of the Chief Engineer, Bihar State
Electricity Board, in this respect
shall be final.
Note: The term Chief Engineer
includes additional Chief Engineer
for the area concerned.”
A reading thereof would clearly indicate that the Board
is enjoined to give proportionate reduction provided any one
of the conditions enumerated therein had occasioned.
Obviously, an application in that behalf shall be required
to be filed to the Chief Engineer of the Board who was
required to investigate into the matter and then his
decision shall be final. It would appear that a
representation was made, but it is not clear whether it was
to the Chief Engineer, the competent authority in terms of
the agreement or any other officer. Under these
circumstances, unless an application is made to the
competent authority to investigate into the matter, the
board in terms of clause 13 of the contract is necessarily
obliged to demand and the consumer is to comply with the
payment of minimum guarantee amount in terms of the
agreement subject to the decision by the Chief Engineer.
Accordingly we set aside the order of the High Court giving
liberty to the respondents to make an application afresh
within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of
this order to the Chief Engineer, Electricity Board. The
Chief Engineer would enquire into and give the decision in
that behalf. In the event, the Chief Engineer finds that the
Board was responsible, then necessarily, in terms of clause
the proportionate reduction is required to be given to
the respondents.
The appeal is accordingly ordered. No costs.