Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[iii] Maximum Demand Charge for supply in any month depending upon maximum KVA, demanded for the month or 75% of the contract demand, whichever is higher.

[iv] The A.M.G. Charge and Maximum Demand Charge are subject to the provisions of Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement, as has been quoted hereinabove.

9. There is no dispute and there cannot be that Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement, which speaks of grant of remission in certain circumstances mentioned therein, is applicable to the both, i.e., Minimum Guaranteed Charges and Maximum Demand Charges. We will be later referring to Division Bench decision of this Court, in this regard, in our present judgment.

16. In present batch of applications, the petitioners are aggrieved by respective orders, passed by concerned General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer of the Bihar State Electricity Board, whereby they have been allowed proportionate reduction in shortfall units for the year 1997- 1998, on the basis of "ability to avail power". The ability of the consumer, as per the orders, under challenge, had been assessed, on the basis of energy actually consumed by them in total hours of supply and thereby computing their ability to consume during interruption hours of supply. This is in relation to A.M.G. While computing Demand Charges, the formula, as set-up by this Court, in case of M/s. Balajee Patna High Court CWJC No.5614 of 1999 Wire Products (supra), has been applied and after having reached to a calculation, the General Manger-Cum-Chief Engineer has applied the instructions, as contained in Clause 1 of the notification, dated 29.07.1994, which prescribes that the remission would not be more than shortfall charge and, accordingly, granted less remission towards A.M.G./Maximum Demand Charge, than the figure arrived at by applying the said formula of total KVA charged into admitted hours of non- supply divided by total hours to be supplied.

20. Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in C.W.J.C. No.11432 of 1994 and C.W.J.C. No.6347 of 2000, has submitted that the A.M.G. bill is prepared where there is any shortfall in unit consumption than the Minimum Guaranteed Units, at the end of the year. The Minimum Guaranteed Amount, in respect of the Demand Charges, is to be billed on monthly basis. It is his contention that the Demand Charges have to be reduced proportionately from the charges, to the extent and in proportion to the time for which there was no supply of Patna High Court CWJC No.5614 of 1999 electricity. According to him, this provision, in Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement, has been incorporated in the background of the fact that the basic premise for Demand Charge is continuous/un-interrupted supply to the extent of maximum demand of the consumer. It is his case that there is no dispute over A.M.G., since the petitioner has been able to consume energy in excess of A.M.G. As regards Demand Charge, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to proportionate reduction to the extent of non-supply of electricity by the Board. On the issue of applicability of the notification, dated 29.07.1994, he has argued that the claim of the petitioner relates to the period 1971-1972 to 1984- 1985 (C.W.J.C. No.11432 of 1994) and period 1985-1986 to 1996-1997 (C.W.J.C. No.6347 of 2000). He agues that the notification, dated 29.07.1994, covers period of only 2 years, i.e., 1995-1996 to 1996-1997.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5614 of 1999 Even when the machines are not operating, the consumer may require supply of electrical energy for the purpose of maintenance of machinery, security etc. The provisions of the contract of supply of electrical energy vis-a-vis the power of the Board to charge Minimum guarantee charges and maximum demand charges have to be viewed in that contest."