ORDER

Leave granted.

2. 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. Acknowledgements 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.

3. The only question is: whether the respondents ate 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 straightaway 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. v. M/s. Dhanawat Rice & Oil Mills1, arising from the appellant