JUDGMENT

OZA, J. :— Leave granted.

2. These special leave petitions have been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Patna by which several writ petitions were disposed of. All these special leave petitions have been preferred in this Court aggrieved by that judgment. The common question which arise in all these SLPs is that under the agreement arrived at between the consumers and the Bihar State Electricity Board there is a clause of payment of minimum guarantee which indicates that even if the consumer does not consume electricity above the minimum guarantee then it will be incumbent upon the consumer to pay charges for energy which is the annual minimum guarantee provided in the agreement pertaining to Industrial units.

3. The relevant facts are that for the years 1973-74 to 1982-83 the bills for annual minimum guarantee were served on the appellants by the Electricity Supply Division, Forbesganj and on receipt there to the appellants filed their claims as provided under clause 13 of the agreement on the ground that appellant was not liable to pay any such charges because the appellant did not supply constant electricity as provided in the agreement during the period in question and there were tripping, load shedding, and power-cut .which resulted in a great loss to the petitioners and as the supply was not in accordance with the agreement liability to pay annual minimum guarantee bills could not be fastened on the consumer. The Chief Engineer who was the authority under the agreement negatived the claim and so they filed writ petitions in the High Court.

4. The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that under clause 1 of the agreement it was incumbent for the Electricity Board to supply constant electricity and the consumer will be liable to pay annual minimum guarantee charges only if in spite of the fact that the Board supplied power as contemplated in the agreement and the consumer does not utilise the power then the liability to pay annual minimum guarantee charges will arise and on this basis the High Court quashed the demands made for these years on the basis of annual minimum guarantee as it found that power was not supplied according to the agreement. `

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board contended that clause 1 of the agreement does not in any manner mean that there should be a continuous supply. The term used in clause 1 of the agreement only talks of constant supply of electrical energy at the pressure of volts, cycles, 3 phase, 3 wire etc. but it does not talk of continuous supply without any break and it therefore could not be contended that if there was no supply for a few minutes it will amount to failure on the part of the Electricity Board to provide constant supply. It was contended that the constant supply can not mean continuous supply. It was also contended that clause 4 of the agreement clearly talks of the payment of annual minimum guarantee charges and therefore it could not be said that because of the power cut or situations beyond the control of the Electricity Board if the power could not be supplied for all the 24 hours every day the respondent consumer can deny the liability to pay annual minimum Guarantee bills. It was also contended that in view of clause 13 of the agreement which provides that if there was shortage of supply and that shortage resulted in short supply then the consumer was entitled to a proportionate reduction of the annual minimum guarantee bill as determined by the Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board and consequently the respondent in this case went to the Chief Engineer who ultimately decided on the basis of facts that respondents were not entitled to any proportionate reduction and it was because of this that the petitions were filed before the High Court. It was contended that the learned Judges of the High Court have failed to appreciate clause 13 of the agreement. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decisio