Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—With a view to run its Cold Storage, the petitioner applied to Benares Electric Light & Power Company Limited for supply of electrical energy under the provisions of the Benares City and Cantonment Electric License, 1967-68. The power connection was provided to the petitioner from 132 KV Sub-station, Contonment, Varanasi. An agreement to this effect was executed between the petitioner and the Benares Electric Light & Power Company Limited in the year 1925. Taking recourse of the entire distribution work of the electrical energy of Benares Electric Light & Power Company Limited stands vested in the U.P. State Electricity Board (in short ‘UPSEB’ and as a consequence thereof the petitioner became consumer of the said Board. An agreement was executed in this behalf which was renewed from time to time. In the meantime, the contracted load of the petitioner had gone various variations from time to time, which now stands as 128 KVA for which an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Board on 1.6.1985.

2. The State Government issued Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2000 which resulted in winding up of UPSEB and transferred all its assets and liabilities etc. to U.P. Power Corporation Limited and two other companies. The distribution and transmission work of the UPSEB was also transferred to U.P. Power Corporation Limited and the generation of two other companies. Thereafter the Central Legislature intervene for major reformation in Electrical sector and in order to simplify legal provisions available in different Acts enacted a comprehensive legislation namely, Electricity Act, 2003 which came into force on 10.6.2003.

3. In order to ensure running of its Cold Storage unit, petitioner required 128 KVA power load and accordingly the U.P.State Electricity Board installed a transformer of 250 KVS capacity, which was sufficient to meet out the petitioner’s requirement and power supply was rearranged and transferred to 33 KV feeder emanating from 132 KV Sub-station, Gajokhar, Varanasi.

The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is as follows :

(a) Minimum Guarantee charges was raised by respondent No. 2 for the bills between the year 2003-2004 when the power supply was not given to the petitioner on account of non-availability of transformer.

(b) Minimum Guarantee charges bill raised for the supply which was disconnected on account of burnt/damaged transformer.

(c) Supply provided to the petitioner from the Rural Feeder but tariff has been billed at the rate of Urban Feeder.

(d) On account of disputed bill raised by the respondents, no surcharge could be recovered from the petitioner.

(e) On account of expenses incurred by the petitioner in getting the transformer repaired, it was the duty of the respondents to adjust the repairing charges of the transformer in the bill raised by them.

4. An appeal was preferred against the order of the Executive Engineer, which was partly allowed by the appellate authority. The demand of minimum guarantee consumption regarding the period from 2003 to 2004 was found to be not recoverable from the petitioner as there was no power supply made by the respondents during the aforesaid period. However, other contentions of the petitioner have been rejected by the appellate authority. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Following issues arise in this petition :

(1) Whether minimum guarantee charges can be recovered from the consumer, when there is no minimum guarantee supply ?

(2) Whether minimum guarantee charges can be recovered if the disability has occurred on account of failure on the part of licensee to supply power ?

(3) Whether on account of failure to repair the transformer by the respondents, the expenses incurred by the petitioner to get the transformer repaired at his own cost could be adjusted towards the bills raised against the petitioner ?

(4) Whether consumer can be charged at the Urb