Unlawful disconnection of electric supply by the Board does not entitle it to claim annual minimum guarantee charges from the consumer.

The prayer in this application is to quash Annexure 5, the bill showing an arrear of Rs. 10081.99 paise.

2. The petitioner is a low tension consumer. It was served with a bill (Annexure 1) making demand of Rs. 5235.28 paise on the basis of 30 per cent load factor. That was challenged in this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 450 of 1989. The application was disposed of on 17.1.1989 holding that the Board had no authority to make demand on the basis of 30 per cent load factor. It appears that the question with regard to annual minimum guarantee charge also arose. The Bench hearing that application observed that the petitioner, if so advised, may make its claim under Clause 13 of the agreement before the Chief Engineer -cum-General Manager of the Board. The petitioner accordingly filed its representation under Clause 13 of the agreement claiming that it was not obliged to make any payment for annual minimum guarantee charge for the period when the line was disconnected, not on account of any fault of the petitioner but on account of illegal disconnection made by the Board and its authority. It appears that the claim of the petitioner under Clause 13 was rejected by the Chief Engineer-cum-General Manager. This fact was communicated to the petitioner by Annexure 4 by the Electrical Engineer, Patliputra Supply Division (P.E.S.U.). The bill (Annexure 5) in the circumstance was served on the petitioner making a demand of Rs. 10081.99 paise for annual minimum guarantee charge for the period beginning from 13.12.1987 to 9.2.1989 when the supply of energy remained discontinued on account of non-payment of the charge as per Annexure 1 which was raised on the basis of 30 per cent load factor.

3. Learned counsel in support of this application contended that in view of the decision in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. M/s Green Rubber Industries and others (A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 699), annual minimum guarantee charge can be lawfully levied even after disconnection for a period of one year. But he urged that the dictum that annual minimum guarantee charge can be levied after disconnection for one year, will not apply to cases where the disconnection has been unlawfully made by the Board Mr. Shiv Kriti Singh, on the other hand, says that the Board had issued tariff notification on 16.2.1987 according to which, charge on the basis of 30 per cent load factor could be levied and as such the amount raised under this head cannot be said to be not due to the Board. It may be relevant at this stage to refer to section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act only). This section provides that where any person neglects to pay any charge due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after observing" certain conditions disconnect the supply of energy without any prejudice to recover the dues in any other lawful manner. Therefore, the question which falls for consideration is as to whether it can be said that the discontinuation of the supply of energy to the petitioner was lawful. It will be lawful if the discontinuance was made on account of any dues from the petitioner. But in case there was no dues then the discontinuation was unlawful. What, therefore, constitute ‘dues’ has to be determined. Mr. Shiv Kriti Singh says that if tile Board in bona fide manner thought that the amount raised on the basis of 30 per cent load factor was due and if the same was not paid then the disconnection on this ground is valid. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, says that it is not for the consumer or for the licensee to decide as to whether any amount is due or not. He says that in case there is any disagreement on such issue then the competent authority to adjudicate is the court and the decision of the court is binding on the parties even if it is not to their liking or to their satisfaction. We think, learned counsel is correct May be, the Board genuinely felt that it