Judgment : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition was preferred by the petitioner against the decision of General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, South Bihar and Chhota nagpur Area Electricity Board, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the General Manager), communicated vide letter dated 22nd July, 1999, whereby and whereunder, he refused to decide and settle the claim for relief under Clause 13 of H. T. agreement for the financial years 1993-94 to 1997-98. The petitioner has also challenged the legality and propriety of Boards decision contained in Notification No. 810 dated 29th July, 1994, wherein certain guidelines laid down under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (shortly referred to as the Act), prescribing the procedure and mode in which settlement of claim to be made under Clause 13 of the H. T. agreement. ( 2 ) IT is not necessary to discuss all the facts, as the claim under Clause 13 has been rejected not on merit, but on technical ground in the light of Boards Notification dated 29th July, 1994. ( 3 ) IT appears that the petitioner earlier preferred writ petition, CWJC No. 1184 of 1995 (R) - (Banarsi Lal Jhunjhunwala v. BSEB) against the bill so far it relates to Annual Minimum Guarantee (A. M. G.) charges for the period 1994-95. This Court, taking into consideration the fact that claim under Clause 13 had already been preferred, by its order dated 6th December, 95 disposed of the writ petition with direction to the authority to consider the claim and to decide the same by reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioners, within a month. In respect to period 1995-96, a writ petition, CWJC No. 86 of 1997 (R) was preferred, which was disposed of on 16th January, 1997, wherein the Court allowed the petitioner to make a fresh representation within fifteen days to the General Manager who, in his turn, was directed to dispose of the same by a speaking order with reason, within three weeks. By interim order, the Court also directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner, if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within two weeks and go on paying all the current charges. By interim order, the Court also directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner, if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within two weeks and go on paying all the current charges. Another writ petition, CWJC No. 1996 of 1997 (R) was also preferred by the petitioner against the bill for the financial year 1996-97 and a Bench of this Court vide order dated 21st May, 1998, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner filed claim for remission under Clause 13 on 15th May, 1997, passed the following orders :"considering the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, the petitioner should deposit 50% of the Annual Minimum Gurantee charges as covered by Annexure-1 immediately and if there is no other dues against the petitioner, then the electric connection at Chakulia is to be restored within a fortnight by respondent No. 3 and the claim preferred by the petitioner i. e. on 15-5-97 before the respondent No. 2 in respect of Annual Minimum Guaranteed charges for the year 1996-97 should be decided by the respondent No. 2 within three months from the date of production of this order and immediately after that, petitioner should deposit the balance amount of Annual Minimum Guaranteed charges within the time as would be fixed by respondents No. 2 and 3 failing which the electric connection is liable to be disconnected forthwith. It is also ordered that petitioner should go on depositing after restoration of electric connection all the charges admissible under the rules of the Board" ( 4 ) AFTER disposal of all the cases, all the applications for settlement of claim and relief under Clause 13 as were filed by the petitioner for the years 1993-94 to 1997-98 have been rejected and communicated vide impugned letter dated 22nd July, 1999 for the grounds, as quoted hereunder :"the claim of M/s. B. L. Jhunjhunwala and Sons at and P. O. Chakulia, Singhbhum (East) Con. No. HG-9 for the years 1993-94 to 1997-98 is hereby rejected on the following grounds :- (i) The claim was never lodged before the competent authority - the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer to settle the claim. The claims were lodged before the Elect. Suptdg. Engineer, Elecl. Circle, Jamshedpur with a copy to General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer. (ii) The requisite proforma for claims pertains to all the years was found incomplete to the extent that Sl. The claims were lodged before the Elect. Suptdg. Engineer, Elecl. Circle, Jamshedpur with a copy to General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer. (ii) The requisite proforma for claims pertains to all the years was found incomplete to the extent that Sl. No. 9 was neither filled nor submitted anything in that regard during hearings. (iii) The claim pertaining to the years 1993-94, 1995-96 and 1997-98 were not submitted within stipulated period after due date for payment of AMG bill. (iv) The consumer did not care to pay 50% of the A. M. G. charges before lodging the claim. "similar plea taken by the Respondents in their counter affidavit with further plea that the petitioner was given full opportunity to plead its case. ( 5 ) THERE are two main issues to be determined in the present case, namely, (a) whether a claim under Clause 13 of the H. T. agreement can be rejected without deciding the same on merit, if filed after 90 days from the date of issue of A. M. G. bill and (b) whether while making claim under Clause 13 of the H. T. agreement, an applicant has to pay 50% of the amount of disputed A. M. G. bill or not. ( 6 ) THE counsel for the Board mainly relied on Notification No. 810 dated 29th July, 1994 to suggest that a claim under Clause 13 of H. T. agreement cannot be entertained after 90 days and such claim can be made only on depositing 50% amount of the bill. Reliance was also placed on unreported decision of this Court in Rishi Cement Co. Ltd. v. B. S. E. B. , C. W. J. C. No. 1751 of 2000 (R), disposed of by learned single Judge on 5th July, 2000, as affirmed by order dated 22nd August, 2000 in L. P. A. No. 274 of 2000 (R) between the same parties. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, a claim for remission is made, provision having made under Clause 13 of the H. T. agreement, which agreement is binding between the parties. It neither prescribes any limitation to file such claim nor stipulates payment of any amount as pre-condition to determine such claim under Clause 13. ( 8 ) THE Board, for the first time, prescribed certain guidelines in its Resolution No. 6700 dated 20th July, 1994 for settlement of claim under Clause 13. It neither prescribes any limitation to file such claim nor stipulates payment of any amount as pre-condition to determine such claim under Clause 13. ( 8 ) THE Board, for the first time, prescribed certain guidelines in its Resolution No. 6700 dated 20th July, 1994 for settlement of claim under Clause 13. Such guideline was so framed under Section 79 of the Act and circulated vide Notification No. 810 dated 29th July, 1994. Therein, while the Board stipulated the stage at which remission under Clause 13 can be allowed, also prescribed a period of limitation (90 days) for entertaining such application under Clause 13. It was also stipulated to deposit of 50% of the disputed A. M. G. bill to avoid disconnection, as evident from the following quotations : " (1) Remission under Clause 13 will be allowable only when AMG has been charged and the maximum amount of remission would not be more than the shortfall in AMG charged. 2. The relief is allowable both fordemand charge and guaranteed energy charge as per Clause 13 of the H. T. Agreement. However the remission under Clause 13 should be granted in proportion to the ability of the consumers to take or the Board to supply such power as provided in the said clause. The inability to take supply of electrical energy by the consumers for non-availability of raw materials, labour unrest without supporting document or arising out due to Sunday and other holidays would not attract Clause 13 of the H. T. Agreement. 3. Stoppage of supply can be either due to load sheding or system failure for reasons beyond Boards control. Hence after careful consideration it has been decided to grant proportionate relief for interruption of duration of 30 minutes and above. 4 (a) Two separate bills, one for the month of March and the other for the short fall in AMG charges shall be served to the consumer in the month of April. (b) The bill, served for the full amount of shortfall in AMG charges shall contain a clause that "if the consumer challenges the demand made, he may submit a claim under appropriate clause of agreement within a period of three months (90 days) after due date of the bill with details on the basis of which relief has been claimed in Boards prescribed pro forma". (c) If the consumer deposits a sum representing 50% (fifty) of the amount in the bill for the shortfall in the charges, within due date and informs that he intends to file claim for remission, then his electric line will not be disconnected for the dues relating to this bill, internal/d. P. will be charged for the balance payable amount as settled under the clause. 5. For the earlier years, if a consumer files claim under appropriate clause of the Agreement after three years, it cannot be entertained, except the claim pertaining to the years 1991-92 to 1993-94 which can be entertained if the same is filed by a consumer within six months from the date of this notification in the gazette or in the newspaper. 6 (a) Claim made under Clause 13 of H. T. Agreement in respect of current year will be disposed of within a period of 4 months by the competent authority of the Board from the date of filing of claim. (b) No claim under Clause 13 of H. T. Agreement in respect of current financial year (1994-95) filed after 90 days from the date of issue of the AMG bill. 7. Proportionate rebate, as per tarrif will be allowed on the AMG bill issued to the consumer for the amount paid within specified due date. 8. For speedy disposal of the claim, it would be necessary to have the interruption reports in respect of the feeders giving power supply to the H. T. consumers concerned. Hence the Electrical Executive Engineer of the respective supply divisions will send feederwise interruption report duly verified for each financial year within one month after the close of the financial year to the concerned General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer under intimation to Elecl. Superintending Engineers. This interruption report will incorporate all interruptions with reasons in the feeder for each month separately. " ( 9 ) ONE may doubt the jurisdiction of the Board to frame regulations under Section 79 of the Act in respect to remission of A. M. G. charges. Though the petitioner prayed to declare the aforesaid Notification No. 810 dated 29th July, 1994 as misconceived and cannot be relied upon to reject the petitioners claim, no specific challenge having made and no pleading having advanced, this Court is not deciding the legality and propriety of the impugned Notification No. 810 dated 29th July, 1994. Though the petitioner prayed to declare the aforesaid Notification No. 810 dated 29th July, 1994 as misconceived and cannot be relied upon to reject the petitioners claim, no specific challenge having made and no pleading having advanced, this Court is not deciding the legality and propriety of the impugned Notification No. 810 dated 29th July, 1994. ( 10 ) IT will be evident from Notification dated 29th July, 1994 that the officials were asked to insert a clause in the bill that the consumer if challenges the demand, is to submit claim under appropriate clause of agreement within a period of three months after due date of bill with details and basis to claim relief in prescribed pro forma. Thus, if any such sitpulation/clause made in the A. M. G. bill prescribing limitation of 90 days, any claim under Clause 13 of the H. T. agreement preferred beyond the period of limitation is liable to be rejected, subject to any specific direction given by the Board or a Court of competent jurisdiction. ( 11 ) THERE is nothing on the record to suggest that the Board made any guidelines to deposit 50% of the disputed A. M. G. bill as pre-condition for determination of a claim made under Clause 13 of the H. T. agreement. Admittedly, no such stipulation is made in the agreement nor in the Notification No. 810 dated 29th July, 1994. Clause C of Para 4 of the Notification No. 810 dated 29th July, 1994 relates to disconnection of electric line, wherein specific stipulation made not to disconnect the electric line if the consumer deposits 50% of the amount of A. M. G. bill within due date and informs its intention to file claim for remission. The Notification No. 810 dated 29th July, 1994 fell for consideration before this Court in Amarnath Rice Mill v. B. S. E. B. (Unreported), C. W. J. C. No. 1768 of 1996 (R), disposed of on 26th June, 1996. Therein, the Court held that the Notification dated 29th July, 1995 issued by the Board merely vests suo motu power on the Board not to disconnect the power line of person, if intends to file petition under Clause 13 of the H. T. agreement after depositing 50% of the disputed A. M. G. bill. Therein, the Court held that the Notification dated 29th July, 1995 issued by the Board merely vests suo motu power on the Board not to disconnect the power line of person, if intends to file petition under Clause 13 of the H. T. agreement after depositing 50% of the disputed A. M. G. bill. It further held that the Notification dated 29th July, 1994 is not binding in cases where specific direction given by a Court of law or the party disclaimed full liability. So far as decision of Rishi Cement Co. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, as relied by the counsel for the Board, therein the present issues were not raised nor specifically decided by the Court. The sole question raised was as to whether A. M. G. charges would be payable by a consumer for the period when there was no supply of electricity by the Board in the premises. ( 12 ) TAKING into consideration the different decisions, including Supreme Courts decision in B. S. E. B. v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries, AIR 1990 SC 699 , the Court rejected the contention of the petitioner Rishi Cement Co. Ltd. that it was not liable to pay A. M. G. charges for the period when there had been no supply of electricity. In the aforesaid case of Rishi Cement Co. Ltd. , the counsel for the Board submitted that while making claim under (Cl. 13 of H. T. Agreement, it was necessary to) pay 50% amount of the disputed bill, which was accepted by the Court in the said case, while it observed that the petitioner if wants to make claim in terms of Clause 13 of the H. T. agreement, it was to deposit 50% of the disputed amount along with the claim. ( 13 ) IN the present case of petitioner, no such direction was given by this Court to deposit 50% of the bill as pre-condition for deciding the claim under Clause 13 of the H. T. agreement. In C. W. J. C. No. 1184 of 1995 (R), this Court specifically directed the authority concerned, vide order dated 6th December, 1995 to consider the claim and decide the same by reasoned order after giving hearing to the petitioner. In C. W. J. C. No. 1184 of 1995 (R), this Court specifically directed the authority concerned, vide order dated 6th December, 1995 to consider the claim and decide the same by reasoned order after giving hearing to the petitioner. In C. W. J. C. No. 86 of 1997 (R), similar order was given by the Court on 16th January, 1997 to decide the claim by speaking reasoned order. In the third case, C. W. J. C. No. 1996 of 1997 (R), no pre-condition laid by the Court to deposit any amount fordetermination of claim under Clause 13 of H. T. agreement. The petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the A. M. G. charges for restoration of electrical line but not as a pre-condition for determination of claim. ( 14 ) IN the circumstances, there was no occasion for the General Manager to refuse to entertain representation on the ground of non-payment of 50% of the A. M. G. charges before lodging claim. ( 15 ) SO far as limitation in submitting claims under Clause 13 of the H. T. agreement is concerned, there is nothing on the record that any limitation period was prescribed in the bill, as stipulated under Notification No. 810 dated 29th July, 1994. It is not the case of the Respondents nor mentioned in the impugned order dated 27th July, 1999 that a limitation was prescribed in the bill but petitioner failed to file objection/claim for remission under Clause 13 of H. T. agreement within the stipulated period. ( 16 ) IN the aforesaid background, the Respondent-General Manager should not have rejected the claim on the ground that the application was barred by limitation. Further, once a Court of law directs to consider the claim and decide the same by reasoned order, the General Manager concerned is bound to determine the same on merit and delay, if any, in that case to be construed as condoned by the Court. ( 17 ) THE other two grounds at Clause (i) and (ii) shown in the impugned order dated 22nd July, 1999 are mere technical, in nature, which should have been ignored. If any claim under Clause 13 of the H. T. agreement is filed and ultimately placed before the General Manager, he cannot avoid to give a decision, on merit, by rejecting the application on the ground that it was not directly lodged before him. If any claim under Clause 13 of the H. T. agreement is filed and ultimately placed before the General Manager, he cannot avoid to give a decision, on merit, by rejecting the application on the ground that it was not directly lodged before him. ( 18 ) THIS apart, there being no requisite pro forma circulated, the General Manager concerned cannot refuse to decide the claim under Clause 13 of H. T. agreement on the ground of incomplete particular. If detail for such claim is mentioned in an application under Clause 13 of H. T. agreement, the same should be decided on merit. ( 19 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the decision of General Manager, as communicated vide letter dated 22nd July, 1999 cannot be upheld and thereby the same is set aside. The case is remitted to the concerned General Manager to decide each of the claim under Clause 13 of H. T. agreement in respect to the years 1993-94 to 1997-98, by speaking order after hearing the petitioner, preferably within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ( 20 ) THE writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .