Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is aggrieved by that part of the Judgment dated 18-8-98 passed by learned single Judge in cwjc No. 1888 of 1990r whereby it was held that the appellant shall be entitled to reduction of contract demand from 12000 kva to 900 KVA with effect from June, 1991 instead of giving direction for reduction of load from 12000 KVA to 8000 KVA with effect from December, 1988. ( 2 ) THE appellant, who is a High Tension consumer, entered into an agreement in 1974 with the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board for supply of electricity on the maximum demand of 12000 KVA. It was alleged that the supply of electrical energy by the Board was deteriorated giving rise to serious disruption in the production and in order to keep its production intact, the appellant sought permission of the Board under Section 44 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (in short Act of 1948) for installation of generating sets in the premises. The Board granted permission to set up own generating sets of the capacity of 6 Megawatts and 3. 5 Megawatts turbine by letter dated 15-10-1981. ( 3 ) THE appellants case was that since the unit was not getting continuous supply of the contract demand of 12000 KVA and was forced to pay Annual Minimum Guarantee and Maximum Demand Charges on the basis of 12000 KVA and as such the appellant by notice dated 5-11-1987 addressed to the respondents requested for reduction of contract demand from 12000 kva to 8000 KVA. The said notice was duly served upon the Electrical Executive Engineer on 12-11 -1987. The matter with regard to reduction of load remain pending with the board from 1987 till 1989 in spite of repeated reminders sent by the appellant. Appellants further case is that after much persuation the Superintending Engineer recommended for reduction of load from 12000 kva to 9000 KVA vide letter dated 25-8-89 and finally the claim of the petitioner-appellant was rejected on the ground that the application for reduction of load was not entertainable. The appellant said to have made several representations to the respondents and thereafter moved this Court by filing aforementioned writ petition. The appellant said to have made several representations to the respondents and thereafter moved this Court by filing aforementioned writ petition. The respondent-Board in their counter-affidavit have not denied the service of notice but the contention of the Board is that subsequent to service of notice the actual load in the premises of the appellant was found more than 8000 KVA and sometimes more than 9000 KVA and therefore, appellant was not entitled for reduction of load from 12000 KVA to 8000 KVA. Respondents case is that while granting permission to the appellants company for installation of their own generating set, a condition was put that no claim for reduction of contract demand shall entertained due to additional energy generating from their own generating sets. The claim of the appellant for reduction of maximum demand was therefore not bona fide and was invalid. ( 4 ) LEARNED single Judge after considering the facts of the case and the arguments advanced by the parties, firstly held that the condition put in the letter granting permission for installation of generator set that the appellant/consumer will not claim reduction of load is unreasonable and arbitrary and accordingly the said condition was quashed. Learned single Judge further held that when the petitioner company made a request by letter dated 21-5-1990 for reduction of contract demand from. 12000 KVA to 9000 KVA then the relief sought for seeking direction for reduction to 8000 KVA is not justified. However, learned single Judge further held that since notice was sent in May, 1990 and therefore after expiry of the period of 12 months the appellant-company became entitled to reduction of contract demand to the extent of 9000 KVA with effect from June, 1991. ( 5 ) MR. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-company firstly submitted that when admittedly notice dated 5-11-1987 for reduction of contract demand was served then there was no justification for the Court not to allow reduction of demand with effect from november, 1988 i. e. after expiry of 12 months from the date of service of notice. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned single Judge has erred in law in holding that since fresh notice was given by the appellant on 21-5-1990 for reduction of load from 12000 KVA to 9000 KVA the same should be allowed only after the expiry of one year from 21-5-1990. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned single Judge has erred in law in holding that since fresh notice was given by the appellant on 21-5-1990 for reduction of load from 12000 KVA to 9000 KVA the same should be allowed only after the expiry of one year from 21-5-1990. Mr. Mahto lastly submitted that when the condition put in the letter allowing to install generator set was quashed by the learned single Judge then the reduction ought to have allowed with effect from the date of notice dated 5-11-1987. ( 6 ) MR. V. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board on the other hand submitted that the notice dated 5-11-87 issued by the appellant claiming reduction of load was rejected as not entertainable in view of condition imposed upon the appellant while granting permission for installation of generating set. Since the appellant made a fresh representation in May, 1990, the same was considered by the respondents and the reduction was allowed with effect from 1991 in accordance with law. ( 7 ) AS noticed above. in 1981, the appellant approached the Board seeking permission for installation of their own turbine generating set in accordance with provisions of section 44 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. The Board by letter dated 15-10-1981 directed the appellant to install its own turbine generating set for generating energy on certain terms and conditions. One of the condition was that due to petitioner availing energy from its own generating set, no claim for reduction existing maximum demand shall be entertained. Since supply of electrical energy by the Board to the appellant did not improve and maximum load was far less than 12000 KVA the appellant sent notice dated 5-11-1987 for reduction of contract demand from 12000 KVA to 8000 KVA in terms of the agreement. Respondent No. 6, Electrical Executive Engineer forwarded/ recommended the application to respondent No. 5 Electrical Superintending Engineer. THE said application was rejected on the ground that as per condition put in the letter granting permission for installation of generating set, the claim for reduction of load will not be entertained. Respondent No. 6, Electrical Executive Engineer forwarded/ recommended the application to respondent No. 5 Electrical Superintending Engineer. THE said application was rejected on the ground that as per condition put in the letter granting permission for installation of generating set, the claim for reduction of load will not be entertained. ( 8 ) IN course of argument before the learned single Judge, it was contended by the counsel for the respondent that the board was still ready and willing to consider the claim of reduction if a proper notice is served by the petitioner-company in terms of the agreement. It was contended that earlier notice dated 5-11-87 was not properly served nor the subsequent notice for reduction of load was served properly and as such it was addressed to the General Managercum-Chief Engineer and not to the Electrical Executive Engineer. The learned single judge has rightly held that it will be too hyper technical to take such defence by the respondent-Board. ( 9 ) UNDISPUTEDLY Section 44 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 vests power with the Board to grant or not to grant permission to any consumer for Installation of his own generating set or captive power plant. When the Board decide either way, they must act reasonably and not arbitrarily. In the instant case when the appellant-company made a request for permission to install their own generating sets on the ground that the position of supply of energy by the board had deteriorated and the Board decided to accord permission for installing such generating sets, there was absolutely no occasion for imposing condition that due to such an installation the petitioner company shall forfeit their right to seek reduction of the contract demand on whatsoever ground and for whatsoever reasons. Learned single Judge has rightly held that such condition being unreasonable and arbitrary is fit to be quashed. ( 10 ) BE that as it may, it appears that the respondent-Board subsequently realized their arbitrary action by rejecting application of the petitioner dated 5-11-1987 and then the subsequent application filed by the appellant was entertained and was recommended by Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer for reduction of load. Learned single Judge therefore rightly came to the conclusion that appellant was entitled to reduction of load from 12000 KVA to 9000 KVA. Learned single Judge therefore rightly came to the conclusion that appellant was entitled to reduction of load from 12000 KVA to 9000 KVA. The contention of the appellant is that the reduction of load ought to have been given from 12000 KVA to 8000 KVA cannot be accepted for the reason that admittedly after the application dated 5-11-87 the contract load was found in between 8000 KVA to 9000 KVA. However, in our view, the learned single Judge was not justified in holding that the reduction of maximum contract demand will be effective from June, 1991 as notice for reduction of load was given in May, 1990. It has not been disputed by the Board that notice dated 5-11-87 was served upon the Board for reduction of load from 12000 KVA to 8000 KVA and the said application was processed and recommended by the authorities but it was ultimately rejected on the ground that as per the condition put in the agreement the appellant was not entitled to reduction of contract demand. Once it was held that rejection of that application on that condition was illegal and arbitrary and when such condition was put in the agreement was passed by the learned single Judge then there is no reason why the appellant would not be entitled to reduction of load with effect from expiry of one year from the date of service of notice dated 5-11-87. In our view therefore the appellant company became entitled to reduction of maximum contract demand from 12000 KVA to 9000 KVA with effect from December, 1988. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we allow this appeal in part and modify the judgment only to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to reduction of contract demand to the extent of 9000 KVA with effect from december, 1988. Consequently, Board is directed to raise bills on the basis of contract demand of 9000 KVA with effect from december, 1988 with interest at the rate of 15% in terms of interim order dated 23-10-90 passed in the said writ application. ( 12 ) I agree. ORDERED accordingly. --- *** --- .