Judgment 1. The petitioner - a Company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of Flour Mills, has filed the present writ application for quashing the Annual Minimum Guarantee Bill dated 29-6-2001, issued by the Revenue Officer of the Bihar State Electricity Board (for short the Board) for the period 2000-2001 and for a direction to the Board and its Officers to charge the amount of Minimum Guarantee at the contract load of 200 KVA and further for a direction to them to make a formal agreement for the reduced load for future consumption of electricity. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it has taken a High Tension Industrial Connection (for short HT connection) for running its business. Earlier on 1-10-1988, the petitioner was given an H.T. Service connection on a contract demand of 100 KVA. The capacity of the transformer of the petitioner was 500 KVA. As the capacity of the transformer was beyond the permissible limit of 150 KVA, the same was in violation of Clause 16.4 of the Boards Tariff Notification dated 21-6-1993. The Board issued a notice to the petitioner to replace the transformer and bring it down to permissible limit of 150 KVA of the contract demand. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into an H.T. agreement with the Board for a contract demand of 335 KVA. The agreement was executed on 1-8-1996 for a period of three years. The need of the petitioner was not up to contract demand and, thereafter, by letter dated 20-12-1998 the petitioner requested the Electrical Superintending Engineer to change the transformer of 250 KVA capacity and reduce the load to 200 KVA. Again on 27-10-1999, the petitioner requested for reduction of contract load and deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 50.00 (Annexure 2). In other words, on 27-10-1999 the petitioner served twelve months notice in terms of Clause 9 (a) of the H.T. agreement. 3. However, the officers of the Board did not pay any heed to the said request of the petitioner and, thereafter, it sent several reminders to the concerned authorities for reduction of the contract load. Again it sent a letter dated 22-12-2000 addressed to the Electrical Superintending Engineer with a request to arrange for the reduction of the contract load. 3. However, the officers of the Board did not pay any heed to the said request of the petitioner and, thereafter, it sent several reminders to the concerned authorities for reduction of the contract load. Again it sent a letter dated 22-12-2000 addressed to the Electrical Superintending Engineer with a request to arrange for the reduction of the contract load. Thereafter, on 15-3-2001, the Electrical Superintending Engineer informed the petitioner that since the petitioner has procured a transformer of 315 KVA for replacement and has availed a maximum demand of 234.8 KVA during January, 2001, the application filed by it for reduction of contract demand from 335 KVA to 200 KVA was not acceptable as per Boards Rule. The petitioner was further asked to apply afresh to the Assistant Electrical Engineer for reduction of contract demand to a minimum of 214 KVA. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a reply to the said letter stating that it was willing to enter into an agreement of 214 KVA as offered by the Board. Thereafter, the Board served a bill of A.M.G. upon the petitioner for the period 2000-2001 for Rs. 4,05,370.80 Ps. 4. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid bill on the ground that it is liable to pay the A.M.G. charges at the contract demand of 335 KVA only up to October, 2000, in terms of the H.T. Agreement and, thereafter, it is not liable to pay the contract demand beyond 210 KVA in view of the request made by it after October, 2000 to reduce the contract demand to 210 KVA. 5. The Board has admitted that the earlier contract demand of the petitioner in the year 1988 was 100 KVA but it installed the transformer of 500 KVA, which was beyond the permissible limit of 150 KVA of the contract demand and, thereafter, it was asked to instal a transformer within six months as permissible in terms of the provisions of the Boards Tariff Notification of the year 1993. The petitioner disputed the capacity of the transfer of 500 KVA and claimed that it was up to 250 KVA. It was asked to produce the proof in support of the said fact and submit the inspection report of the Inspector. However, instead of that, the petitioner filed an application on 31-7-1996 for enhancement in the contract demand from 100 KVA to 220 KVA. It was asked to produce the proof in support of the said fact and submit the inspection report of the Inspector. However, instead of that, the petitioner filed an application on 31-7-1996 for enhancement in the contract demand from 100 KVA to 220 KVA. The Electrical Executive Engineer, who had inspected the premises of the petitioner, found that the capacity of the transformer was not changed by the consumer from 500 KVA to 250 KVA but re-engraving was made on the name plate of the transformer. Thereafter, the petitioner withdrew its false claim made earlier that it had installed transformer of 250 KVA and applied for enhancement of contract demand from 100 KVA to 335 KVA on the basis of the capacity of the transformer being 500 KVA. The Board granted the contract demand of 335 KVA and when the petitioner deposited the requisite security money, an agreement in the prescribed Form No. E.B. 204 for a contract demand of 335 KVA was entered between the parties on 6-8-1996. It is also admitted that on 20-12-1998 the petitioner informed that it has arranged a distribution transformer of 250 K.V.A. capacity and its contract demand may be reduced to 200 K.V.A. But as the said letter was filed before expiry of the term of the agreement, no action was taken on the said letter. It is also admitted that the petitioner gave a notice on 27-10-1999 under Clause 9 (a) of the H.T. agreement for reduction of the contract demand from 335 KVA to 200 KVA. On 8-2-2000 it filed copies of the challan and interest certificate of a distribution transformer of 315 KVA capacity which was more than 150 KVA of the contract demand of 200 KVA. The Board did not accede to the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the reduction of the contract demand to 200 KVA was not permissible because the capacity of the transformer of the petitioner was higher than the permissible limit and when the petitioner was found on inspection to have been availing a maximum demand of 234.8 KVA during January, 2001, the petitioner was requested by letter dated 15-3-2001 to apply afresh before the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Digha, for reduction on contract demand from existing 335 KVA to minimum of 214 KVA. The petitioner did not file a fresh application before the Assistant Electrical Engineer in pursuance of letter dated 15-3-2001, but, on the other hand, it sent a letter dated 19-6-2001 in the concerned office of the Board regarding acceptance of the contract demand of 214 KVA. Thus, the petitioner has now agreed for a contract demand of 214 KVA, for which it has to apply afresh in prescribed form with requisite fee of Rs. 50.00 and, thereafter, the connection may be given to it as per sanction of load execution of agreement clearance of Electrical Inspector, Government of Bihar and observance of other formalities. 6. According to the Board, the bill in question has been served upon the petitioner as per law for the aforesaid period during which it had availed the power supply from a 500 KVA transformer on a contract demand of 335 KVA. 7. The petitioner has filed a reply to the counter-affidavit and apart from reiterating other facts it has also filed receipt showing purchase of 315 KVA transformer on 14-12-2000. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay the energy charges on the basis of the contract demand of 335 KVA only for the period of agreement (three years) and the notice period of 12 months, which came to an end in October, 2000 as the notice was served on the Board on 27-10-1999 and, thereafter, it is liable to pay the energy charges on the basis of reduced load as required by it i.e. 200 KVA. Accordingly, the A.M.G. bill prepared on the basis of contract demand of 335 KVA for the entire period of 2000-2001 is arbitrary and impermissible in law. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Board, on the other hand, submitted that the contract demand of the petitioner was 335 KVA in terms of the agreement and that has continued for the period 2000-2001 also. At no point of time, the petitioner filed an application for determination of the term of agreement in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9(a) of the H.T. agreement. At no point of time, the petitioner filed an application for determination of the term of agreement in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9(a) of the H.T. agreement. Even the prayer for reduction of contract demand by letter dated 27-10-1999 that the petitioner procured a transformer of 315 KVA and contract demand should be reduced to 200 KVA, was also not permissible in terms of the Boards Tariff as the capacity of the transformer was more than 150 KVA of the work load and was, thus, in contravention of the provision of the Boards Tariff of 1993. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner entered into an agreement on 6-8-1996, according to which the Board was to supply electricity to the petitioner on the basis of contract demand of 335 KVA. According to the terms of the agreement, the petitioner has to pay A.M.G. charges even though he may not consume electricity during that period. The period of agreement was for three years and it was to be continued until it was determined by the parties. Under Clause 9 (a) of the agreement, the petitioner could not determine the agreement before expiry of the period of three years and after expiry thereof by giving a twelve months notice in writing. The period of three years, thus, expired on 6-8-1999. As stated above, the petitioner requested for reduction of contract demand to 200 KVA by letter dated 20-12-1998 claiming that it has installed a transformer of 250 KVA capacity. As this letter was prior to the expiry period of the agreement, the same was not permissible in law and the Board rightly did not entertain the same. The petitioner filed another application on 27-10-1999 again for reduction of contract demand. It continued to file subsequent applications for reduction of the contract demand but at no point of time it filed any application for determination of the agreement in term of Clause 9 of the agreement. Thus, unless the agreement is determined, it has to continue from year to year even after expiry of the period of three years. 11. It continued to file subsequent applications for reduction of the contract demand but at no point of time it filed any application for determination of the agreement in term of Clause 9 of the agreement. Thus, unless the agreement is determined, it has to continue from year to year even after expiry of the period of three years. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board V/s. UMI Special Steel Ltd., reported in AIR 2001 SC 161 , considered the agreement in question and held that the agreement was to be for a period of three years and, thereafter, to continue from year to year until it was to be determined under Clause 9 of the agreement. It was further held that under Clause 9 of the agreement, the consumer could not determine the agreement before expiry of three years, and he could determine the agreement only by giving a notice in writing of 12 months. In this connection, it is relevant to quote paragraph 8 of the said judgment, which runs thus : "8. As has been seen the agreement was to be for a period of 3 years and was to continue from year to year, till determined in the manner provided under the agreement. During the subsistence of the agreement the minimum charges had to be paid. Clause (9) of the agreement clearly provided that during the first 3 years the agreement could not be determined. Thereafter the agreement could be determined only by giving a notice in writing of 12 months. Clause 9 also provided that though there was disconnection of electricity, still the agreement would subsist for a period of 12 months from the date of disconnection." 12. Thus, the notice dated 27-10-1997, wherein a prayer for reduction of contract demand was made by the petitioner, cannot be treated to be a notice for determination of the agreement. There is no dispute between the parties that even if the prayer for reduction of contract demand is allowed, a fresh agreement has to be entered between the parties after observing other formalities including inspection by an Electrical Inspector. Therefore, the contract demand of the petitioner continued to 335 KVA as there was no determination of the agreement in terms of Clause 9 thereof. 13. Therefore, the contract demand of the petitioner continued to 335 KVA as there was no determination of the agreement in terms of Clause 9 thereof. 13. This apart, the prayer of the petitioner dated 27-10-1999 was that it has arranged a transformer of 315 KVA and, therefore, wanted reduction in the contract demand to 200 KVA, which could not have been allowed for the reason that the capacity of the transformer was more than 150 KVA of the contract demand, which was not permissible in view of the provisions of the Boards Tariff of 1993 and as such no fault can be attributed to the official of the Board in not acceding to the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner in pursuance of notice dated 27-10-1999. 14. The petitioner has filed Annexures 9 series (invoice, Challan and Test Certificate dated 14-12-2000) to show that it has purchased a transformer of 315 KVA. However, this purchase was made in December, 2000, whereas, the prayer for reduction of contract demand on the ground of availability of the transformer was made in October, 1999 itself. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner that it has arranged a transformer of 315 KVA at the time of giving notice to the Board on 27-10-1999 is not acceptable on the basis of the materials available on the record. 15. Thus, in view of the fact that there was no determination of the lease in terms of the agreement for the relevant period i.e. 2000-2001, the petitioner is liable to pay the energy charges on the basis of contract demand of 335 KVA. 16. In the result, I find no ground to quash the A.M.G. Bill dated 29-6-2001 (Annexure 8) and, accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Application dismissed.