AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Shivkirti Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent Board.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer Central Area Electricity Board has refused to grant remission on maximum demand charges only on the ground that no annual minimum guarantee charges was raised. In terms of Clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement, remission will be granted if the conditions are satisfied not only in relation to annual minimum guarantee charges but also maximum demand charges.
In this view of the matter, in our opinion, even if no bill has been raised charging annual minimum guarantee charges, the Petitioner may be entitled to remission under the maximum demand charges if the conditions precedent laid down in Clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement are satisfied. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed and Respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the Petitioner''s representation for remission on maximum demand charges on merits.