http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M/S. ALLIED REFRACTORIES (PVT.) LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (2)   381        1996 SCALE  (2)125

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Though the  respondents  have  been  served  twice  and respondents 1,  2 and  6 were  again served on September 22, 1995, they  are not  appearing either  in person  or through counsel. Acknowledgments from respondents 3, 4 and 5 for the second occasion  have  not  been  received.  We,  therefore, declare that they are deemed to have been served.           The only  question is: whether the respondents are entitled to  the  proportionate  reduction  of  the  minimum guaranteed amount  for non-supply  of the electricity due to disruption by  trippings load sheddings and power cuts etc.? Clause [13] of the contract entered into, provides that they are entitled  to make an application in such a situation and the Board would consider and pass appropriate orders in that behalf. Admittedly,  the respondents  had not  made such  an application, but  straightway approached  the High Court for the relief.  The High  Court in  the  impugned  order  dated August, 16,  1988 in  C.W.J.C. No. 1480 of 1988 directed the appellant  to   grant  them   proportionate  reduction.  The controversy is  no longer  res integra.  This Court in Bihar State Electricity  Board & Anr. vs. M/s. Dhanawat Rice & Oil Mills, [(1989)  1 SCC  452] arising from the appellant-Board itself had held that under Section 49, an agreement had been entered into  by the  consumer with  the  appellant  to  pay minimum guarantee  of charges  to the  Board. On  failure to consume the  minimum guaranteed  level of electricity due to non-supply of  electricity by  trippings, load  sheddings or power cuts,  the consumer  would  be  entitled  to  make  an application  for  proportionate  reduction  of  the  minimum guarantee.  Since   respondents  had   not  made   such   an application,  the   High  Court   was   not   justified   in straightaway allowing  the writ  petitions and directing the grant of  the proportionate  reduction.  The  order  is  set aside. This  order does not preclude the respondents to make application accordingly  under Section 49 of the Electricity

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Supply Act  and it  would be  open to the appellant-Board to consider and  pass appropriate  orders within  a  reasonable time form the date of making the application.      The  appeal   is  accordingly   allowed,  but,  in  the circumstances, without costs.