JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to reduce the electricity load of the petitioners' unit from 110 K.V.A. to 95 B.H.P. w.e.f. September, 1990, and to levy the electricity charges accordingly. A further prayer has been made that the respondents be directed to refund or adjust, in future bills, the excess amount paid by the petitioners.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is a cold storage which was sanctioned a load of 110 K.V.A. In the year 1988 and an agreement in that regard was executed between the parties. The petitioners claim that an application to reduce the electricity load from 110 K.V.A. to 95 B.H.P. was moved on 24.5.1990 and they also submitted the duly filled in B and L forms which are necessary under the rules on 31.8.1990. The fee for disconnection was deposited on 6.9.1990. The petitioners' case is that they wrote several letters to the respondents for taking necessary steps for reduction of the load but no action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioners filed C.M. Writ Petition No. 21658 of 1995 in this Court which was disposed of on 9.8.1995 and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioners' representation for reduction of load expeditiously. A certified copy of the order of the High Court was filed before the Chief Zonal Engineer, Agra, who wrote to the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Aligarh, on 14.8.1995 to reduce the electricity load of the petitioners. However, the respondents continue to issue bills on the basis that the load of the petitioners was 110 K.V.A. With these averments, the writ petition was filed by the petitioners on 28.9.1995.
3. 'A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Hathras, Aligarh, wherein it is averred that the maximum demand raised by the petitioners from time to time showed that the connected load was much more than 95 B.H.P. A chart has also been given which shows that from May, 1991 to October, 1995, the demand of the petitioners' unit varied between 129.96 to 99.18 B.H.P. It has further been averred that the petitioners deposited the load reduction charges vide receipt No. 72008/26 on 2.9.1995. A fresh agreement was executed on 2.9.1995 and an office memorandum was prepared showing completion of all the formalities on 7.9.1995. Thereafter, the load was reduced w.e.f. 1.10.1995. Copies of the agreement executed by Gopal Das. petitioner No. 2 on 2.9.1995 and the office memorandum dated 7.9.1995 have been filed as Annexures-CA-I and CA-II to the counter-affidavit.
4. The procedure for reduction of load is given in Regulation 10 (b) of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, and the relevant part thereof reads as under :
"JO (b) Application for reduction of load.--If a consumer, in whose "'name the service is connected, wishes to have his contracted load reduced, he shall submit an application thereof, giving full particular of reduction of load required by him. The reduction in the contracted load of various categories of power consumers on such an application shall be allowed by the supplier on the terms and conditions detailed below, after completion of necessary formalities by the consumer, which are subject to revision by the supplier from time to time.
Large and Heavy Power Consumer (above 75 K.W./100 B.H.P.) :
(i) A revised B and L form for the load to remain connected under the reduced contracted demand shall be furnished by the consumer for purposes of record.
(ii) It shall be, invariably, ensured that trivector meter/ M.D.I, is existing at the premises of the consumer and recording correctly, failing which the M.D.I, will be got installed/replaced to have a watch-over the load of the consumer.
(iii) The existing Board's equipment (line, transformer and switchgear etc.) installed for feeding the existing load will be replaced by the equipment adequate for giving power to the extent of the reduced contracted load and the expenditure incurred by the Board on dismantling and erection including the cost of cartage, labour and unsalvaged materials, if any, will be paid by the consumer.
(iv) The existing agreement will stand terminated with effect from the date of allowing reduction in load and the consumer will be required to sign a fresh agreement for the reduced load effective from the date of allowing reduction of load.
(v) The consumer will be required to deposit additional amount of security to bring the security at the current rates as may be in force from time to time."
5. The record shows that the necessary fee for reduction of load was deposited on 2.9.1995 and a fresh agreement was also executed by petitioner No. 2 on the same date. It was, thereafter, that the petitioners became entitled to reduction of load. It is not disputed in the rejoinder-affidavit that w.e.f. 1.10.1995, the petitioners are being billed on the footing that their contracted load is 95 B.H.P. In these circumstances, the petitioners cannot claim that their load should be treated to be that of 95 B.H.P., w.c.f. September, 1990 and they should be billed accordingly. It is true that the petitioners had moved an application for reduction of load much earlier, sometime in May, 1990, and due to inaction of the respondents, their load was not reduced. But the fact remains that they continued to get electricity supply of 110 K.V.A. till the load was actually reduced in September, 1995. The chart given in the counter-affidavit also shows that during the aforesaid period, i.e., from May, 1991 to October, 1995, the maximum demand raised by the petitioners very often exceeded 95 B.H.P. and it went upto 129.96 B.H.P. The petitioners were, in fact, taking advantage of the higher load sanctioned to them. In view of Clause (iv) of Regulation 10 (b) of the Regulations, the reduction in load would be effective only after a fresh agreement has been executed. The fresh agreement was executed by petitioner No. 1 on 2.9.1995 and, consequently, the reduction in load could only be effective thereafter. There is no dispute that w.e.f. 1.10.1995 the petitioners are being billed on the basis that their load is 95 B.H.P. It is, therefore, not possible to grant the reliefs claimed by the petitioners that they should be charged on the footing that their load was 95 B.H.P. w.e.f. September, 1990.
6. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.