ORDER The Court 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.1.2000 passed by Electrical Superintending Engineer whereby the said authority has refused to entertain the notice dated 20.2.98 for reduction of load from 280 KVA to 135 KVA and held that notice period will expire in November. 2000 treating the letter dated 11.11.1999 as the notice for reduction of load. Petitioner also challenged the bill dated 27.9.2000 which was raised on the basis of contract demand of 280 KVA. 3. The petitioner was sanctioned a load of 135 KVA. A High Tension Tariff agreement to that effect was executed on 8.2.1995. Immediately after 1-1/2 years petitioner applied for enhancement of load from 135 KVA to 280 KVA. The request of the petitioner was accepted and additional agreement was executed on 29.1.97 enhancing load from 135 KVA to 280 KVA with effect from 1.11.1996 Petitioners case is that since no market was available for the products of the petitioner a notice dated 20.2.98 was given to the Board to reduce the load from 280 KVA to 135 KVA. A copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. The said notice was followed by subsequent letters and reminders dated 10.5.99, 11.11.99, 29.11.99. 8.12.99 and also various other subsequent letters. When the request of the petitioner was not considered then the petitioner moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 131 of 2000 (R), This Court after hearing the parties disposed of the writ application on 15.3.2000 by passing the following order: "Heard Mr. V. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Singh. learned counsel for the Board. The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that although petitioner has applied in February. 1998 for reduction of load from 280 KVA to 135 KVA but till date no decision has been taken by the respondent-Board. In the facts of the case, 1 direct the petitioner to file a fresh application before respondent No. 3 claiming reduction of load from 280 KVA to 135 KVA along with the copy of the application which was said to have been filed on 22.2.98. On receipt of such application respondent No. 3 shall go into the matter and take a decision by passing a reasoned order. On receipt of such application respondent No. 3 shall go into the matter and take a decision by passing a reasoned order. The application must be disposed of within one month from the date of receipt of the application. With the aforesaid direction this writ application is disposed of." 4. Petitioner accordingly approached the respondent-Board along with fresh application and copy of earlier notice dated 20.2.98 for taking a decision. It appears that the Electrical Superintending Engineer Ranchi took a decision which was communicated vide memo No. 171 dated 29.1.2000. As noticed above, the Superintending Engineer took the view that only letter dated 11.11.99 may be treated as notice for reduction of load and therefore the request for reduction of load can be considered after expiry of three years from the date of notice i.e. November 2000. 5. Mr. M.S. Mittal, counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention to several annexures including the first agreement and additional agreement executed in 1995 and 1997 respectively and submitted that the Superintending Engineer has acted arbitrarily and capriciously in not giving effect to the notice dated 20.2.98. The existence of notice dated 20.2.98 has not been denied or disputed by the respondent-Board. 6. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the Board on the other hand submitted that the notice dated 20.2.98 and the subsequent letters were not duly signed by the competent authority of the company and therefore these letters were rightly not given effect to. Learned counsel submitted that since the notice dated 11.11.99 was issued by the competent authority of the company enclosing a power of attorney that notice shall be treated as notice of demand. Learned counsel secondly submitted that in terms of Clause 9(a) of the additional agreement (Annexure-10) any change in the agreement can be done at the instance of consumer only after expiry of three years from the date of supply of electricity. In other words according to the learned counsel the Board is at liberty to determine the agreement before the expiry of three years from the date of commencement of supply of electricity. 7. First question that falls for consideration is as to whether the stand of Superintending Engineer in the order dated 29.1.2000 ignoring letter dated 20.2.98 and subsequent reminders on the ground that the said notices were not issued by authorised persons is justified. 7. First question that falls for consideration is as to whether the stand of Superintending Engineer in the order dated 29.1.2000 ignoring letter dated 20.2.98 and subsequent reminders on the ground that the said notices were not issued by authorised persons is justified. Admittedly, the notices for reduction of load dated 20.2.98 was issued on behalf of Company and signed by its Manager followed by reminder dated 10.5.99. It is also not disputed that the petitioner thereafter sent several letters including letter No. 11.11.99 and then moved this Court by tiling earlier writ application. It is only in January, 2000, the Board for the first time informed the petitioner that letter dated 20.2.98 can not be acted upon on the ground that the same was not issued by authorised persons. In my opinion, the action on the part of the respondent-Board to inform the consumer alter two years that notice dated 20.2.98 for reduction of load since not signed by the competent authority can not be entertained is wholly unjustified. 8. From perusal of the original agreement and the additional agreement it appears that ordinarily the agreement shall remain inforce for three years at the first instance from the date of commencement of supply of electricity and as per Clause 9(a) the consumer shall not be at liberty to determine the agreement before the expiry of three years from the date of commencement supply of electricity. Admittedly, first original agreement was executed in 1995 and immediately alter 1-1/2 years the petitioner and the Board executed additional agreement enhancing the load from 135 KVA to 280 KVA. When the earlier application for enhancement of load was entertained and considered by the Board within 1-1/2 years, the Board can not be allowed to say that reduction of load from 280 KVA to 135 KVA can not be considered within a period of three years. Mr. V.P. Singh submitted that in terms of the agreement Board is empowered to execute additional agreement or terminate the agreement even before three years but the consumer can not determine the agreement before the expiry of three years. This Court is of the view when the Board can execute additional agreement even before expiry of three years why not the consumer will have the liberty to approach the Board for execution of additional agreement before the expiry of three years. This Court is of the view when the Board can execute additional agreement even before expiry of three years why not the consumer will have the liberty to approach the Board for execution of additional agreement before the expiry of three years. Clause 9(a) of the agreement shall be equally applicable to both the Board and the Consumer. 9. For all these reasons. I am of the opinion that the decision of the Superintending Engineer treating the letter dated 11.11.99 as the notice for reduction of load can not be sustained in law. This writ application is therefore allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. The respondent-Board is directed to take fresh decision treating the letter dated 20.2.98 as notice for reduction of load from 280 KVA to 135 KVA. Till final decision is taken by the Superintending Engineer, which this Court expect to be taken within 15 days from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, recovery of amount pursuant to bill (An-nexure-8) shall not be enforced. 10. Appeal allowed with directions.