Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner is a Company registered as Small Scale Industry. The petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 for supply of Electricity of (16 K.V.) The petitioner states that the respondents were never able to give interrupted supply of power to the unit of the petitioner. There was sudden interruptions which caused much loss to the petitioner. The petitioner further states that the industry of the petitioner is such that after an interruption it cannot immediately start consuming the power and it takes a longer period to make the unit ready for consuming the connected load. The petitioner stated that there was trippongs, load-sheddings and power galore all the time. 2. The petitioner states that during the periods 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 the Respondents failed to perform their part of the agreement/contract but all the bills were raised for A.M.G. and under duress or coercion the petitioner was made to pay the same as such submitted a claim for Rs. 2,53,285.60 ps. for the period 1982-83 to 1986-87 giving details of the said claim including the periods then the Respondents failed to supply electricity, vide its letter No. GIPL/59/90/246 dated 21.8.1990 which was duly received by Respondent No. 2. 3. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Electricity Board V/s. Dhanwanti Rice and Oil Mills -- held that a consumer of electricity was entitled to a proportionate deduction in the minimum Guarantee bills and was not liable to pay if the Board did not supply the constant electricity as provided in the agreement. The petitioner here, on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, filed a petition under Clause 13 of the HT Agreement for remission in the A.M.G. for the financial year 1982-83 to 1986-87. 4. The General Manager of the Board was pleased to hold that the preliminary objections raised by the Board that the claims" made in the petition could not be entertained since it was made more than 7 years of payment of bills. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner relying on decision of the Bombay High Court reported in -- that the law of limitation is not applicable in such matters. 5. The-Supreme Court gave decision in Dhanwantis case in February 1989 and the claim was filed in 1990. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner relying on decision of the Bombay High Court reported in -- that the law of limitation is not applicable in such matters. 5. The-Supreme Court gave decision in Dhanwantis case in February 1989 and the claim was filed in 1990. The General Manager upheld the stand of the Board and held as follows: There is also no merit in the contention that date of payment should be taken as the point from which period of limitation shall run because AMG bill is the actual instrument which has to be challenged by the consumer for proportionate reduction in the AMG charges as per Clause-13 of the HT agreement and the limitation under Article 55 as well as other provisions of the limitation Act 1963 must start from the date of service of bill only by the law. The unqualified payment is not in fact acquisence. The claim, is therefore, found to be barred by law of limitation and as such cannot be entertained. 6. The petitioner has impugned the legality of the order of the General Manager (Annexure-4) Mr. Banerjee has contended that the respondent No. 2 not being a court within the meaning of definition of Court in the Limitation Act can not be made applicable. It was submitted that the General Manager was pleased to set aside the claim of the petitioner on merit and he should not have rejected the representation only on the ground of limitation. On the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the Board, has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to claim by him since he has filed representation after 8 years. 7. It is true that the claim is stale one but the facts remain that the application was filed after the judgment of the Supreme Court. I do not want to express any opinion on the question as to whether the Limitation Act will be applicable or not since, I am remitting the matter to the General Manager to decide the representation on merit. The parties are at liberty to address General Manager in the question whether the limitation Act will be apply or not. 8. In the result, the order of the General Manager (Annexure-4) is quashed and he is directed to pass order on merit after hearing both the parties. 9. This application is disposed of accordingly.