JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi. J.—

1. Whether the respondent, who was a consumer of electricity supplied by Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board [for short, “the Board”] (predecessor of appellant No.1 herein) is liable to pay minimum charges in terms of second proviso to para 11 of agreement dated 21st September, 1998 read with Clause 1? (ii) of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984 [for short, “the Regulations”] after disconnection of the supply of electricity is the question which arises for consideration in this appeal.

2. The respondent had set up a factory at Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which now forms part of the State of Uttarakhand for manufacture of PVC and EPDM rubber profiles for automobile vehicles. In 1990, the Board sanctioned electric connection of 400 ‘r0JA load for the respondent’s factory. Thereafter, as per the requirement of the Regulations, the respondent entered into an agreement with the Board. On 12th February, 1997, the respondent applied for an additional load of 200 KVA, which was duly sanctioned. As a sequel to this, fresh agreement was executed between the parties for the total load of 600 ‘r0J A. After one year and seven months, the respondent approached the Board for reduction of load from 600 KVA to 250 KVA. The competent authority of the Board accepted the respondent’s request, who then executed another agreement dated 21st September, 1998.

3. In May 1999, the supply of electricity to the respondent’s factory was discontinued at the latter’s request. After five months, the concerned Executive Engineer sent communication on 5.10.1999 to the respondent requiring it to pay Rs.6,13,592/- towards minimum charges for six months. This was followed by notice dated 4.5.2000 and recovery certificate dated 4.8.2000 issued under Sections 3 and 5 respectively of the U.P. Government Electricity Undertakings (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1958 [for short, “the 1958 Act”].

4. The respondent challenged the demand of minimum charges in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition NO.511 (M/B) of 2001 by contending that being an old consumer, it was not liable to pay minimum charges after disconnection of the supply of electricity. The Board contested the writ petition and pleaded that in terms of agreement dated 21st September, 1998 and the Regulations framed under Section 49 read with Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 [for short, “the 1948 Act”], the respondent is bound to pay minimum charges for the period of six months counted from the date of disconnection.

5. By the impugned order, a Division Bench of the High Court quashed the demand of minimum charges by observing that Clause 17 of the Regulations is not applicable to the respondent’s case because the initial guarantee period of two years had ended long ago. The Division Bench also held that the demand of minimum charges cannot be raised after disconnection of the supply of electricity.

6. Shri Pradeep Misra, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the High Court committed an error by entertaining the writ petition ignoring that an equally efficacious alternative remedy was available to the respondent by way of arbitration in terms of para 16 of agreement dated 21st September, 1998. He further argued that in view of second proviso to para 11 of agreement dated 21st September, 1998 and Clause 17(ii) of the Regulations, the respondent is bound to pay minimum charges for the period of six months despite the fact that supply of electricity was disconnected sometime in May 1999. Learned counsel then submitted that the High Court’s view on the issue of applicability of Clause 17 of the Regulations to the respondent’s case is ex facie erroneous and is liable to be upset because in terms of para 6 of agreement dated 21st September, 1998 read with para (C) thereof, the date of commencement of supply was 21st September, 1998 and by May 1999, a period of less than one year had been completed. Learned counsel argued that with the execution of fr