A consumer of high tension industrial power is liable to pay minimum monthly charges as per the contract, even in the event of interrupted supply due to power cuts authorized by valid statutory orders.

( 1 ) THE question involved in this writ petition is, whether a consumer of high tension industrial power, on account of interrupted supply of electrical energy due to power cuts, is relieved of the obligation to pay minimum monthly charges and is liable to pay only to the extent of electrical energy actually consumed by him ?

( 2 ) THE petitioner, M/s. Gwalior Steels Private Limited, is a Company under the Companies Act, 1956, having a Mini Steel Plant at Banmore, District Morena, M. P. , manufacturing special alloy steel castings and Sections. The plant was granted high tension industrial power connection by Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (respondent herein) under an agreement, Annexure A. It was undertaken under the agreement that the petitioner would be supplied electricity for a load of 3500 K. V. A. (Kilo Volt Amperes) on 33 K. V. That demand of electricity having been contracted to be supplied is called "contract demand", a phrase which may have to be used in discussion hereafter.

( 3 ) IT is easy to visualise that there may be two kinds of bases to charge for the electricity. One basis may be to charge it on the rate of inflow or load of electricity supplied, i. e. , on K. V. A. Another basis may be to charge it on the actual consumption of electricity, measured in units. It was undertaken under the agreement in question that the petitioner would pay each month minimum charges on the K. V. A. , at the rate of consumption of 100 units per K. V. A. on the contract demand, whether any energy was consumed or not. This was subsequently raised to the rate of consumption of 150 units per K. V. A. of the contract demand. The contract demand being 3500 K. V. A. , the minimum charges came to 3500 multiplied by 150, that is equal to 5,25,000 units. At the tariff rate of 93 paise per unit, the total minimum monthly charges worked out to Rs. 4,88,250/ -. In other words, the petitioner undertook to pay monthly minimum charges of Rs. 4,88,250/- per month for the load of energy contracted to be supplied to him. It will be seen that in order to save loss on the price of electricity it was necessary that the petitioner should have consumed each month at least 5,25,000 units of electrical energy.

( 4 ) THE Mini Steel Plan in question of the petitioner came to be energised on 22/08/1991. Right from that time, power cuts were applied by M. P. E. B. (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") with the result that there never was continuous uninterrupted supply of electricity throughout 24 hours in a day. The consumption of electricity in units by the petitioner could never reach the level of minimum monthly charges in any month.

( 5 ) THE case of the petitioner Company is that during the period from August, 1991, i. e. inception of the Plant, till December, 1991, the power-cuts were to the extent of a total of 560 hours as detailed in Annexure-E to the petition. As per Clause 11 of the agreement, Annexure-A, the Board was obliged to ensure uninterrupted and continuous supply of electricity to the petitioner's Plant. The Board had failed to live-up to this obligation. As a result, the petitioner was prevented from consuming electricity even up to the level of minimum charges. The electricity actually consumed by the petitioner, measured in units, for the period August, 1991 to December, 1991, came to 10,71,384. 60 units of the value of Rs. 9,96,026. 40 p. , whereas the minimum charges for this period came to Rs. 20,61,500. 00. The details and break-up are given in paragraph 14 of the petition. Thus, the minimum charges exceeded by about rupees the lacs over the value of electricity consumed during this period. The minimum charges in fact exceeded actual consumption even for subsequent months until the present petition was filed. The case of the petitioner is that in such a situation Clause 23 of the agreement, Annexure A, was attracted and under it the petitioner was liable to pay only to the extent of energy actually consumed