S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. In all the cases, some of the questions being common and there being common petitioner in two writ petitions, they were taken up for hearing together, but nobody appeared in CWJC. No. 3839 of 1993 (R) - Jamshedpur Cement Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr..

2. In CWJC No. 746 of 1992 (R), the petitioner Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the TISCO) has challenged the order dated 24th December, 1991 passed by the Chief Engineer, South Bihar Chotanagpur Electricity Board, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the General Manager, Ranchi), whereby and whereunder, he allowed part of the claim of petitioner made under Clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement (hereinafter referred to as H.T. agreement) for reduction from the Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges (hereinafter referred to as the AMG charges) and Maximum Demand Charges (hereinafter referred to as the M.D. charges) in respect of the years 1977-78; 78-79 & 82-83.

The petitioner TISCO has also challenged the AMG Bills of the aforesaid years 1977-78; 78-79 & 82-83.

3. In CWJC No. 2574 of 1993 (R), the petitioner TISCO has challenged the order dated 17th August, 1993 passed by the General Manager, Ranchi. By the said order, the General Manager, Ranchi rejected the petitioners claim made under Clause 13 of H.T. agreement for proportionate reduction from the AMG charges and M.D. charges in respect of the years 1990-91; 91-92 & 92-93.

In this case, the petitioner has also challenged the AMG bill dated 21st April, 1993 for the years 1990-91; 91-92 & 92-93.

4. In both the aforesaid cases CWJC No. 946 of 1992 (R) & CWJC No. 2574 of 1993 (R), though the petitioner formally challenged Clause 15.2 of tariff, providing levy of delayed payment surcharge on outstanding bills, but at the time of hearing of the cases, this prayer was not pressed by the counsel for the petitioner.

5. As nobody appeared to prosecute the third case CWJC No. 3839 of 1993 (R), we have not gone into the merits, and dismissed the writ petition for non- prosecution.

6. As no specific pleading was made by the TISCO in either of the writ petitions CWJC No. 746 of 1992 (R) or CWJC No. 2574 of 1993 (R), even the relevant list of dates were not mentioned nor supplied separately, the counsel for the petitioner was allowed to file synopsis with list of dates separately which we have taken into consideration, but to the extent of pleading made in the writ petition or the enclosures attached in its support.

7. The case of petitioner TISCO in CWJC No. 746/92 (R) is that, it entered into an agreement with the Bihar State Electricity Board now Jharkhand State Electricity Board ("Board" for short) on 2nd April, 1970 for supply of electricity at the contract demand of 10 MVA w.e.f. 8th April, 1973 on account of increase requirement of electricity. As per agreement, the Board is supposed to supply electrical energy without any break. A consumer is entitled to claim proportionate reduction under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement, if such consumer is prevented from receiving or using electrical energy either in whole or in part. During the years 1977-78; 78-79 & 82-83, the petitioner could not consume guaranteed units because of power restrictions imposed by the Board and the tripping during those years. In spite of such power restrictions imposed by the Board and tripping during those years, the Board raised bills of AMG charges amounting to Rs. 12,44,872.80 for the period 1977-78; Rs. 10,32,861.51 for the period 1978-79; Rs. 8,52,057.12 for the period 1982-83, the total being Rs. 31,29,791.43.

In the circumstances, the petitioner claimed reduction from AMG & MD charges under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement as and when the bills were raised.

The General Manager, Ranchi rejected the petitioners claim for reduction in respect to all the aforesaid three years by a common order dated 6th October, 1986 mainly on the ground (a) the consumer had availed power according to its need and desire w