Judgment : ( 1 ) PETITIONER prays for quashing the order dated 18-2-1997 passed by the general Manager-cum-Chief Engineer (respondent No. 2) disposing of his claims under Clause 13 of the H. T. Agreement for the years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 and also the bills raised pursuant to the said order. ( 2 ) MR. Mittal, appearing for the petitioner relies on the judgment of M/s Pawan Biscuit co: Pvt. Ltd. (with analogous cases) v. Bihar State Electricity Board and others [ 2004 (1) JLJR 596 ]. Relying on Paragraph 10 of the said judgment, he submitted that petitioner is entitled to proportionate remission for interruptions below 30 minutes also. Further relying on Paragraph 19 of the said judgment, he submitted that the formula adopted by the General Manager is wrong. The petitioner was entitled to remission proportionate to Boards inability to supply electrical energy and the consumers ability or inability to consume energy is irrelevant and immaterial for the purpose of calculating the proportionate remission to be granted to the petitioner. Regarding remission against the maximum demand charges, he relied on paragraphs 12 to 16 of the said judgment. He further submitted that when thee maximum demand indicator was defective during the years 1993-94 and 1994-95, minimum base charge was levied, against which also the petitioner is entitled to remission to the extent of Boards inability to supply electricity i. e. the interruptions. ( 3 ) DISTINGUISHING the case of Ms. Rollwell enterprises v. B. S. E. Board [ (1996) 1 BLJR 641 ] relied on by Mr. Rajesh Shankar, appearing for the Board, Mr. Mittal submitted that in the said case, it was found that the contract demand of the consumer exceeded in each month during the year, whereas in the present case, only in the month of February, 1996, the maximum demand exceeded for which the Board has already charged. Relying on the Division Bench judgment of Dumraon Textiles Limited v. The bihar State Electricity Board [1994 (2) PLJR 858], Mr. Mittal submitted that even if no bill has been raised charging annual minimum guarantee charges, the remission under the maximum demand charges has to be allowed. 3-A. Mr. Rajesh Shankar, appearing for the Board, tried to support the impugned order saying that the General Manager was bound to follow the Circulars of the Board. Mittal submitted that even if no bill has been raised charging annual minimum guarantee charges, the remission under the maximum demand charges has to be allowed. 3-A. Mr. Rajesh Shankar, appearing for the Board, tried to support the impugned order saying that the General Manager was bound to follow the Circulars of the Board. He further submitted that petitioners claim for strike period has rightly been rejected as petitioner did not produce any reliable proof in support of such claim. ( 4 ) IN view of the said judgments relied on by Mr. Mittal. the impugned order cannot be upheld. Petitioner is entitled to proportionate remission from minimum guarantee charges as well as the maximum demand charges for all interruptions. Petitioner can show that it has also maintained its own records of interruptions correctly and faithfully and can dispute the records of interruptions maintained by the Board in the light of Paragraph 69 of the judgment of M/ s. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. v. The Bihar state Electricity Board (1994 BBCJ 369 ). ( 5 ) IN the result, the impugned order dated 18-2-1997 and the bill raised pursuant thereto are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the concerned General manager Singhbhum Area Electricity Board at Jamshedpur for passing a reasoned order in accordance with law, after hearing the parties, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 6 ) WITH these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .