The prayer in this application is to quash Annexure 5, the bill showing an arrear of Rs. 10081.99 paise.

2. The petitioner is a low tension consumer. It was served with a bill (Annexure 1) making demand of Rs. 5235.28 paise on the basis of 30 per cent load factor. That was challenged in this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 450 of 1989. The application was disposed of on 17.1.1989 holding that the Board had no authority to make demand on the basis of 30 per cent load factor. It appears that the question with regard to annual minimum guarantee charge also arose. The Bench hearing that application observed that the petitioner, if so advised, may make its claim under Clause 13 of the agreement before the Chief Engineer -cum-General Manager of the Board. The petitioner accordingly filed its representation under Clause 13 of the agreement claiming that it was not obliged to make any payment for annual minimum guarantee charge for the period when the line was disconnected, not on account of any fault of the petitioner but on account of illegal disconnection made by the Board and its authority. It appears that the claim of the petitioner under Clause 13 was rejected by the Chief Engineer-cum-Gen