Prashant Kumar, J. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for setting aside the order dated 02.03.2013 passed by the Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum, Electric Supply Area, Hazaribagh passed in Case no. 04/2012 corresponding to VUSNF Hazaribagh case no. 21/2012 whereby and where under the claim of the petitioner has been dismissed.

(b) For issuance of an appropriate writs/orders/directions holding that the initial period of supply/commencement of supply to an unit can be only one, irrespective of any supplementary agreement or additional agreement having been entered into subsequently, after the energisation of the line.

(c) For issuance of appropriate writ or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the bill dated 01.04.2013 received by the petitioner, whereby and where under bill dated 18.06.2005 on account of Minimum Guarantee Charges is being sought to be realized along with Delayed Payment Surcharge for the period 01.05.2008 to 28.02.2013, since the issue was pending before the Forum in terms of an order of this High Court and as such the levy of DPS itself is unreasonable and contradictory to the settled principle of law inasmuch as for the period, the stay was operative, the Board could not have levied Delayed Payment Surcharge.

(d) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the bill for the month of May, 2005 in respect of connection no.NR-410 to the extent the Board has sought to levy and realise Minimum Guarantee Charges for 23 months, commencing from June, 2005 to April 2007 and has sought to realise a sum of Rs. 31,62,500/- pursuant to the notice of disconnection given by the petitioner under Clause 9 of the HT Agreement.

(e) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/ directions/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."

2. Petitioner was a High Tension consumer, and its connection number was NR 410. The contract demand of the petitioner was 550 KVA. It is stated that the electrical connection was given in the premises of petitioner for the first time in the year 1971. The load of the petitioner revised from time to time either by increasing or decreasing the contract demand as per its requirement. It is stated that the petitioner entered into an agreement on 21.05.1988 for reduction of contract load from 150 KVA to 115 KVA. Thereafter, petitioner's contract load was enhanced to 200 KVA. Then, petitioner entered into a fresh agreement on 03.03.1997 and its contract demand enhanced from 200 KVA to 360 KVA. It is stated that thereafter, again on 08.07.1998, petitioner entered into a fresh agreement as the contract demand of the petitioner enhanced from 360 KVA to 460 KVA. It is then stated that in the year 2001, when M/s Maithan Minerals Pvt. Ltd. amalgamated with M/s Maithan Ceramics Ltd., petitioner again entered into a fresh agreement with the Board on 30.01.2001 for the same contract demand i.e. 460 KVA. It is stated that petitioner again applied for enhancement of contract load to the extent of 90 KVA i.e. from 460 KVA to 550 KVA and the Electrical Superintending Engineer vide its letter no. 760 dated 05.05.2004 enhanced the contract demand of the petitioner. In the said sanction letter, it was stated that petitioner had to execute a fresh agreement for enhancement of contract load. It is stated that as stipulated in the sanction order, petitioner executed a fresh agreement on 03.06.2004 for enhancement of its contract load from 460 KVA to 550 KVA. It is stated that thereafter, petitioner's company started suffering due to irregular supply of power and frequent power cuts. It is also stated that the power supplied by the Board was not stable in comparison with the other licensees and the same is also much more expensive. Thus, as per Clause 9 of the H