Judgment

K. N. SAIKIA, L:- This appeal by special leave is from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated May 22, 1986 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1915 of 1986 quashing the bills issued by the appellants demanding minimum guaranteed charges from the respondents.

2. The appellants Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, hereinafter referred to as the Board, entered into an ageement with the respondent-M/s. Green Rubber Industries, a partnership firm, hereinafter referred to as the firm, on the latters application dated 26th July, 1978, for supplying the electricity of 60 KVA and on 13-4-1981 gave electricity connection. The firm later applied that it may be given 45 KVA instead of 60 KVA and it deposited the requisite sum of Rs. 2,700/- and a fresh agreement was executed on May 2, 1981. On May 29, 1981 the firm was given fresh connection of 45 KVA. According to the firm it requested the Board on 19-6-1981 to cutoff the connection. The firm received the bills for minimum guaranteed charges for the months of June, July, August and September, 1981, though according to it no electricity was consumed by it during that period. According to the Board on failure to pay the bills, the supply was disconnected on 28th September, 1981. The firm ultimately received a demand notice in October, 1981 for the minimum guaranteed charges from June, 1981 to August, 1981 amounting to Rs. 22,951.50 p. The firm having not paid the amount, the Board sent a requisition to the Certificate Officer who sent a notice to the firm on July 6, 1984. Rejecting the contention of the firm that it was not liable to pay, the Certificate Officer proceeded to pass an order for attachment of the firms property wherefore the firm filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Patna under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the bills as well as the certificate proceedings.

3. Before the High Court the Board contended that the firm was liable to pay the minimum guaranteed charges in terms of the agreement, the disconnection itself having been in terms thereof.

4. The High Court took the view that the Board itself having effected the disconnection it was not entitled to any charges for the period after September, 1981 and it was not open to the Board to contend that under Cl. 9 of the agreement it was not open to either party to terminate the agreement of minimum guaranteed charges before the expiry of two years from the date of the agreement. In that view of the matter, the High Court quashed the bills as well as the certificate proceedings, but allowed the charges for the months of July, August and September, 1981 to be adjusted against the security money.

5. Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits, inter alia, that the firm under the agreement was liable to pay the minimum guaranteed charges irrespective of whether energy was consumed or not during the period of the agreement and that disconnection of the supply on failure of the firm to pay the energy bills would not affect the obligation; and that the High Court fell into error in holding that the Board itself having disconnected the energy supply line it could not claim minimum guaranteed charges thereafter.

6. None appears for the respondents despite notice in the regular as well as substituted manner of service.

7. The question to be decided is whether despite the fact that the supply line was disconnected on September 28, 1981, the firm was still liable to pay the minimum guaranteed charges under the agreement. The answer depends on the agreement itself and the relevant provisions of law. Clause 4 of the agreement says:

"The consumer shall pay to the Board for the energy so supplied and registered or taken to have been supplied as aforesaid at the appropriate rates applicable to the consumer according to the tariffs framed by the Board and enforced from time to time, the presently enforced tariffs being indicated in the Schedule to th