JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner against the order dated 21st September, 2004 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to the Forum) of Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB for short) Ranchi case No. 98 of 2003, whereby and where under the Forum upheld the order dated 1st August, 2003 passed by 3rd respondent, the General Manager- cum-Chief Engineer, JSEB, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and held that the Annual Minimum Guarantee (AMG for short) bills dated 28th October, 1999 and 22nd November, 1999 for Rs. 19,02,574.25 paise and Rs. 82,534/- respectively have been rightly raised. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Company entered into an agreement with JSEB on 12th August, 1995 for High Tension (HT for short) connection to the Company to receive electricity supply. The Company subsequently having become unable to perform well, in November, 1998, introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Thereafter, the entire work force of the petitioners company at Jamshedpur comprising of 79 employees were voluntarily retired and were released from the services of the Company in two losts i.e., on 30th November, 1998 and 31st December, 1998 respectively. The petitioners Company having stopped production, the matter was reported to all the concerned authorities including the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Jamshedpur, Electrical Circle by its letter dated 4th January, 1999. The decision having been taken to close the Company on or about 10th February, 1999, the matter was reported to the Chief Inspector of Factories. Thereafter, the Company faced further problem due to the action taken by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The petitioner surrendered the HT connection being Consumer No. HJ-46 and requested the JSEB to disconnect supply of electricity. It was informed that the Factory has been closed since February, 1999. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, thereafter, it has received AMG bills dated 28th October, 1999 and 22nd November, 1999 for Rs. 19,02,574.25 paise and Rs. 82,534/- respectively. 4. It appears that the petitioner challenged the aforesaid energy bills dated 28th October, 1999 and 22nd November, 1999 for Rs. 19,02,574.25 paise and Rs. 82,534/-respectively by filing a writ petition CWJC No. 98 of 2000 before Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court, which was disposed of on 14th August, 2001. with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, JSEB East Singhbhum Area Electricity Board, Jamshedpur. 19,02,574.25 paise and Rs. 82,534/-respectively by filing a writ petition CWJC No. 98 of 2000 before Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court, which was disposed of on 14th August, 2001. with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, JSEB East Singhbhum Area Electricity Board, Jamshedpur. The petitioner, thereafter, represented before the said authority, who by order dated 1st August, 2003 upheld the bills, in question. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Forum against the order dated 1st August, 2003, registered as case No. 98 of 2003, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 21st September, 2004. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after notice was given to disconnect supply of electricity, it is not open for JSEB to raise such bills, but such submission cannot be accepted. 6. The matter has been looked into by both General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, JSEB, East Singhbhum Area Electricity Board, Jamshedpur and the Forum, which after due deliberation and having noticed the HT Agreement reached between the petitioner and the JSEB, upheld the AMG bills. The Forum relied on Clause 9(a) of HT Agreement, wherein it is stipulated that the consumer shall not be at liberty to determine the agreement before the expiration of three years from the date of commencement of supply of energy. The consumer may determine the agreement with effect from any date after the said period on giving to the Board not less than twelve calendar months previous notice in writing in that behalf. At Clause 9(b), it was specifically agreed upon that in case of the consumers supply is disconnected by the Board in exercise of its power under the agreement and/or law and the consumer does not apply for reconnection in accordance with law within the reminder period of the compulsory availing of supply, as stated above or the period of notice whichever is longer, he will be deemed to have given a notice on the date of the disconnection in terms of the aforesaid Clause 9(a) for the determination of the agreement and on expiration of the above said reminder period of compulsory availing of supply or the period of notice whichever is longer, the agreement shall cease and determine in the same way. 7. 7. The case of the Company is that the request for surrendering the HT connection having been made by letter dated 7th June, 1999, after removal of meter, though no charges for meter reading can be raised, but such submission cannot be accepted. As the impugned bills have been raised for the notice period of twelve months raising only AMG charges, in the circumstances, no ground has been made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 21st September, 2004 passed by the Forum, the AMG bills dated 28th October, 1999 and 22nd November, 1999 for Rs. 19.02.574.25 paise and Rs. 82,534/- having been raised as per Agreement. 8. There being no merit, this writ petition is dismissed.