ORDER The present writ petition has been preferred for the following relief:- (a) For a direction upon the Respondents to forthwith reduce the contract demand to 200 KVA from 240 KVA with effect from its date of application i.e. 13.5.1995 (Annexure-2) pursuant to which the officials of the Board already conducted load verification in the petitioner’s premises on 26.5.1995 (Annexure-4) and since then the Respondents are sitting tight over the matter although the petitioner has been giving reminders from time to time to them for the said purpose, (b) For a direction upon the Respondents to calculate and refund the excess amount charged and realized from the petitioner since May, 1995 till date i.e. the difference of charges between the old constructed load of 240 KVA and the reduced load of 200 KVA for which application was filed on 13.5.1995 (Annexure-2), (c) For a direction upon the Respondents to consider the application dated 29.11.1995 (Annexure-2) filed by the petitioner in prescribed form after depositing the fee of Rs.70/-for the same vide receipt No. 671068 dated 20.11.1995 (Annexure-5/1) before Respondent No. 7 on 29.11.1995 itself for reduction in the contracted load from 240 KVA to 200 KVA and to reduce the contracted load accordingly to 200 KVA and grant such reduction in load in energy bills with effect from the date of said application dated 29.11.1995. 2. The facts in brief are stated as under:- The petitioner has a mining business at Daltonganj in the district of Palamau. It had entered into an agreement on 1.4.1986 with the respondent Board for supply of electricity under Tariff Symbol H.T.S.-I having its consumer No. D-350. The contract demand as mentioned in serial No. 4 to the schedule at page-7 of the H.T. Agreement was 240 KVA and the bills were raised by the Board and the petitioner was paying the bills accordingly. 3. The case of the petitioner is that it started experiencing low voltage in supply which made it impossible to run its factory and in order to reduce the load the petitioner closed down one of its Roller Mills in the month of October, 1994 and the same was duly informed to the Electrical Engineer (Rural). The petitioner also applied for withdrawal of one of the aforesaid mills from its factory vide its application dated 12.5.1995. 4. The petitioner also applied for withdrawal of one of the aforesaid mills from its factory vide its application dated 12.5.1995. 4. To ascertain the load of the petitioner and its transformer’s capacity for taking further action in the matter a committee inspected the premises on 26.5.1995 and prepared a verification report signed by all the members of the verification team showing the load of the petitioner, based on the capacity of the machineries installed in the factory of the petitioner and on calculation of the load of the different machineries recorded in the said verification report the total load of the petitioner was found to be 220.75 HP i.e. equivalent to 205.95 KVA. 5. As against the reduced requirement the petitioner applied for reduction of load only to the extent of 200 KVA and in reply Respondent No. 5 vide its letter dated 29.8.95 directed to deposit requisite application fee and to file application in proper form for load reduction in the Office of the Assistant Electrical Engineer. Finally on deposit of the requisite fee a fresh application for load reduction in prescribed form for new connection was applied alongwith the money receipt. No action was taken on the application and the energy bills continued to be raised based on contract demand of 240 KVA. Being constrained the petitioner again wrote a letter on 27.8.99 to intervene in the matter personally since four years had already passed but no action was taken to reduce the contract demand and the petitioner was compelled to pay at the old contract demand of 240 KVA. 6. The petitioner being constrained preferred this writ petition for reducing the contract demand to 200 KVA from 240 KVA from the date of its application dated 13.5.95 and has further prayed for refund of the excess amount charged from the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent in their counter-affidavit at paragraphs-6(d) & (e) has submitted as under:- “6(d) As per clause 9 of the H.T. Agreement, the load of an applicant consumer can be reduced only after one year from the date of first information, meaning thereby that a consumer will be charged on the basis of its earlier load till the completion of one year from the date of application for reduction of load. (e) From December, 1995 to July, 1997, the petitioner was billed on the basis of 216 KVA as per the letter dated 4.3.98 issued by the Respondent No. 4 which the petitioner readily accepted and did not raise any objection in this regard till date.” 8. It has also given chart/statement as per the load verification report and has reiterated the fact that the bills between the period from December, 1995 to July, 1997 were raised on the basis of 216 KVA which the petitioner had readily accepted and did not raise any objection and thus the claim for further reduction to 200 KVA was unsustainable. 9. I have considered the rival submission and the pleading. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was incumbent upon the respondent to reduce the load from 240 KVA to 200 KVA w.e.f. the date of application i.e. from 13.5.1995. It has further been submitted that at least after a lapse of one year from the date of application the load reduction should have been allowed. 10. In the counter-affidavit at paragraphs-6(d) & (e), as quoted hereinabove, it will be evident that even the Board on oath has stated that they are ready and willing that as per Clause 9 of the H.T. Agreement to reduce the contract load only after one year from the date of application to reduce the contract load. It is also admitted that from December, 1995 to July, 1997 the petitioner’s bill was raised on the basis of 216 KVA and the petitioner readily paid it without any objection. As per Clause 9 of the H.T. Agreement, the same can be determined before the expiry of three years from the date of commencement of the supply of energy. It further provides that the consumer can also determine this agreement on giving twelve months prior notice in writing. 11. Be that as it may, in view of the admitted position as stated in the counter-affidavit and also in view of the fact that the bills were raised on the reduced contract load of 216 KVA from 1995 onwards and the same was paid by the petitioner without any objection and thus to that extent it can be considered to be an admitted position on the part of both the parties i.e. the petitioner as well as the Board. 12. 12. This issue in question was also considered in Associated Cement Company Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board reported in 2002(3) JCR page 638, wherein a Division Bench of this Court at paragraph-10 held as under:- “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. 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 5.11.1987 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 5.11.1987 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 5.11.1987. 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.” 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board and Another vs. Manju Singh Chauhan, reported in (2000) 10 SCC page 290, while considering a similar issue of reduction of the maximum contract load from 168 KVA to 100 KVA had held at paragraph-8 and 9 as under:- “8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board and Another vs. Manju Singh Chauhan, reported in (2000) 10 SCC page 290, while considering a similar issue of reduction of the maximum contract load from 168 KVA to 100 KVA had held at paragraph-8 and 9 as under:- “8. It is contended that the Board itself, after taking into consideration the circumstances, had reduced the load from 168 KVA to 143 KVA with effect from 1-8-1987 and again to 126 KVA with effect from 1-4-1988. It is contended that if the load could be reduced by the Board for the period indicated above, there was no reason why it could not have been reduced on the request of the respondent for the period in question. It was pointed out to the Commission that the reduction in the contracted load was done in the light of the decision taken by the Board on the representation of the Federation of M.P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry. They had given sufficient reason for the reduction granted to the respondent on the earlier occasion and that it could not be treated as a binding precedent. 9. We are firmly of the view that the action of the Board in refusing the reduction of the load from 168 KVA to 100 KVA as requested by the respondent was wholly in consonance with the terms of the agreement between the parties. That being so, there was no deficiency of service involved in this case and the claim petition was not maintainable before the National Commission under the Act.” 14. We are bound by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Relying upon the aforesaid judgements it will be relevant to refer once again paragraph(e) of the counter affidavit as quoted in paragraph-7 wherein the Board itself after considering the verification report, the consumption and all the factual aspects of the matter took the decision to reduce the contract load to 216 KVA based on which the energy bills were raised and the petitioner without any objection paid the same and thus in the light of the aforesaid admitted position and the facts and circumstance as discussed hereinabove, it will be appropriate to direct the Board to consider raising the bills for the period in question based on 216 KVA as per the reduction granted with effect from December, 1995 to July, 1997. 15. 15. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case this writ petition is partly allowed in the light of the aforesaid direction and in case of any extra payment already made for the energy bills beyond 216 KVA after 1995 the petitioner will be entitled to refund of the amount in excess already paid.