1. Both these cases are being this judgment.

2. In C.W.J.C. No.1527/86(R) the petitioner has challenged the order dated 610-86 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting the representation of the petitioner claiming relief under clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement and also for other reliefs. The petitioners are claiming that they are not liable to pay Annual Minimum Guarantee (in short A.M.G.) and Maximum Demand Charges (in short, M.D.C.) at the contract rate as the electrical energy was not supplied to the Adityapur complex of the petitioner company (TISCO) continuously and to the extent of contract demand. It has also challenged the validity of the claim of the Board demanding delayed payment surcharge.

3. In C.W.J.C. No. 1526/86(R) the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notice vide Sec.24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Annexure-1) threatening disconnection for non-payment of the dues to the tune of more than Rs. 4 crores. The notice (Annexure-1) was issued after the issuance of Annexure-3 of the other writ petition.

4. We have heard the counsel at length only on the question whether the petitioner can claim relief in terms of the agreement, a sample o