The court emphasized the importance of ensuring the payment of the minimum charges for the supply of electrical energy whether consumed or not.

P.A. Mohammed, J.

Both these appeals arise from the judgment of the learned single judge in O.P. No. 3286 of 1998. The writ petitioner is the appellant in W. A. No. 508 of 1992 whereas the first respondent, Kerala State Electricity Board is the appellant in W.A. No. 599 of 1992.

2. Ext. P3 order issued by the second respondent, the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Ernakulam was challenged in the Writ Petition. By the said order, the second respondent directed to restore the electrical connection to the writ petitioner on remittance of the amount of Rs. 29,244.73 towards the arrears of electricity charges and reconnection fee. It was passed by the second respondent pursuant to the judgment of this Court in O.P. No. 7447/85 filed by the Writ Petitioner on an earlier occasion. The learned single judge while disposing of the present writ petition ordered in so far as the disconnection of the power supply thus:

"It has to be held that after disconnecting power supply in February 1984, the Minimum Guarantee Agreement stood terminated by the Electricity Board. Thereafter, it could not have demanded cost of energy in terms of the agreement."

The Electricity Board is aggrieved by the aforesaid finding and hence it filed the Writ Appeal No. 599 of 1992.

3. On the other hand, the writ petitioner has filed W.A. No. 508 of 1992 being aggrieved by the following finding of the learned judge in so far as the use of electrical energy for the industrial lighting.

"It follows that petitioner is entitled to use energy for industrial lighting only to the extent of five percent of the actual consumption at the rates under the Mill mum Guarantee Agreement"

4. Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that what is required to be taken note of is not the 'actual consumption' but the 'deemed consumption' available under the Minimum Guarantee Agreement. In this context, the counsel has brought to our notice the provision contained in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Note (iv) to Clause 32 is as follows:

"A concession for lighting at power tariff will be allowed for power consumers, their factory, workshop or other premises to which power supply is made. The concession is 5 % and 10% of their power consumption for consumers under tariff IV and V respectively. All consumption for lights and fans within the limits of concession will be added to power consumption and treated as power for billing purposes. All consumption for lights and fans in excess of this connection will be charged at lighting tariff 1(b). Residential quarters, shops etc. attached to the factory, workshop or other premises are not eligible for this lighting concession, To get the concession for lighting at power tariff, all lighting loads should be separately wired and metered".

What is revealed from the above Note is that the concession for lighting available to the consumers under tariff IV is 5% of the 'power consumption'. The question is whether the 'power consumption' referred to in this note is the 'actual consumption' or the 'deemed consumption' in the case of a consumer who executed a Minimum Guarantee Agreement. On behalf of the Electricity Board, it is submitted that what is

intended by this provision is only the actual consumption. On the other hand, the counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that what is meant by power consumption is the consumption on the basis of the Minimum Guarantee Agreement. In this case, even though the writ petitioner has regularly remitted electricity charges as per the Minimum Guarantee Agreement he has been directed to pay the electricity charges used for lighting at the rate applicable to commercial tariff. This has been done on the basis that there was no power consumption by the petitioner even though electricity charges as per the Minimum Guarantee Agreement was paid. According to the Board, the concession of 5% for lighting can be fixed only when there is actual power consumption. In the case of the petitioner there w