Judgment The petitioner alleging itself to be a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of Company Act, 1956 alleges that for its small scale industry situated at Bokaro, it had taken one L.T.I.S. electricity connection of 64 H.P. load. For diversification, in the year 2008 the petitioner sought an H.T.I.S. connection for a contract demand of 101 KVA which was sanctioned, and for which a written agreement (Annexure 1) was entered into between the petitioner and Jharkhand State Electricity Board on 11.4.2008. Under Clause 9 (a) of the agreement, the consumer i.e. the petitioner was not at liberty to determine the said agreement before the expiration of 03 years from the date of commencement of supply of energy. By a letter dated 18.11.2008 (Annexure 3) the petitioner sought surrender of the H.T. connection and requested that the petitioner be provided with an L.T. commercial connection at the time of disconnection of the H.T. connection. Later, apparently realising the bar of 03 years, the petitioner wrote another revised letter dated 18.2.2009 requesting the reduction of the petitioner’s load from 101 KVA to 60 H.P. By this change of language, the petitioner apparently tried to give an impression that he was not terminating the agreement, which as stated above, was not capable of termination by the petitioner consumer before the expiry of 03 years of the commencement of supply of energy, but the petitioner was merely trying to reduce the load to 60 H.P. under the existing agreement only. Reliance was placed upon Clause 12 of the agreement which relates to increase of the load, which was permissible under the existing agreement. It was submitted that when the agreement permitted increase of the load it should equally permit decrease of the load. Reliance was placed upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 23.7.2008 in W.P.(C) No.6651 of 2007, M/s Ramkrishna Forging Limited Vrs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Others. That was a case where the load was required to be reduced from 4000 KVA to 1325 KVA. The Division Bench held that the load should be reduced by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. It may be pointed out here that there is a difference between H.T. connection and L.T. connection in respect of the load, tariff manner of supply and the agreement. The Division Bench held that the load should be reduced by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. It may be pointed out here that there is a difference between H.T. connection and L.T. connection in respect of the load, tariff manner of supply and the agreement. 101 KVA load would come under H.T. agreement whereas 60 H.P. would come under L.T. agreement. In the case of Ramkrishna Forging Limited Vrs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Others (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, the original contract demand as well as the reduced demand sought, both fell under H.T. agreement being from 4000 KVA to 1325 KVA. In the present case, the petitioner requires reduction of load from 101 KVA, which comes under H.T. agreement, to 60 H.P. which comes under L.T. agreement. This issue is covered by another Division Bench decision of this Court dated 23.7.2008 in W.P.(C) No.:2653 of 2008, M/s New Engineering Works Vrs. State of Jharkhand connected with W.P.(C) No. 2655 of 2008, M/s ASL Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Others. The said decision relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board Vrs. M/s. Green Rubber Industries and Others (1990) 1 S.C.C. 731 and General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board & Others Vrs. Rajeshwar Singh and Others (1990) 1 S.C.C. 741 held that termination of H.T. agreement before the expiry of the time mentioned therein was not permissible. The Clause 7.5 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2005 issued by a Notification of the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, dated 28.7.2005 says while discussing the consumer’s right to terminate the agreement that “However, if the agreement is to be terminated before expiry of the initial period of agreement, the consumer shall be liable to pay charges as per tariff for the balance period of the initial period of agreement”. Similarly, Clause 9.2.1. of the same Regulation contains a proviso that no reduction of load shall be allowed by the Distribution Licensee before expiry of the initial period of agreement. The present case is not one of the reduction of the load as that would be permissible only within the same category i.e. H.T. or L.T. As pointed out, the present case is one of the termination of the H.T. agreement with a request for substitution of fresh L.T. agreement. The present case is not one of the reduction of the load as that would be permissible only within the same category i.e. H.T. or L.T. As pointed out, the present case is one of the termination of the H.T. agreement with a request for substitution of fresh L.T. agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 15 of the writ petition read with certain bills enclosed as Annexure-5, to show that the present agreement dated 11.4.2008 is being treated as an extension or continuation of the old agreement prior to enhancement to the load of 101 KVA. The exact contention of the petitioner is that under Clause 4(c) of the present agreement, for the first 12 months of the service, the maximum demand charges for any month would be based on actual monthly maximum demand for that month even though it is less than 75% of the contract demand. This contention, if correct, may give a ground to the petitioner to challenge the excess demand for the first 12 months of service but it cannot be interpreted to mean that the H.T. load of 101 KVA is being supplied under the old L.T. agreement. Annexure-1, which is a copy of the H.T. agreement, clearly indicates that it is an entirely new agreement which was legally necessary for the H.T. demand. In the circumstances, the prayer in the writ petition that the respondents should be directed to reduce the petitioner’s contracted demand from 101 KVA to 60 H.P. with effect from the date of the first letter i.e. letter dated 18.11.2008(Annexure-3) or at least with effect from the second letter i.e. letter dated 18.2.2009 (Annexure-4) cannot be granted as it would amount to permitting the consumer petitioner to terminate the H.T. agreement of 101 KVA and to replace it by a new L.T. agreement for 60 H.P., before the expiry of the initial period of 03 years fixed in the H.T. agreement in contravention of the specific condition of the H.T. agreement and also of the specific provisions of the supply Code Regulation. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.