In 1990, the Board sanctioned electric companynection of 400 KVA load for the respondents factory.
By the impugned order, a Division Bench of the High Court quashed the demand of minimum charges by observing that Clause 17 of the Regulations is number applicable to the respondents case because the initial guarantee period of two years had ended long ago.
Thereafter, as per the requirement of the Regulations, the respondent entered into an agreement with the Board.
The Board companytested the writ petition and pleaded that in terms of agreement dated 21st September, 1998 and the Regulations framed under Section 49 read with Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 for short, the 1948 Act, the respondent is bound to pay minimum charges for the period of six months companynted from the date of disconnection.
After five months, the companycerned Executive Engineer sent companymunication on 5.10.1999 to the respondent requiring it to pay Rs.6,13,592/ towards minimum charges for six months.
On 12th February, 1997, the respondent applied for an additional load of 200 KVA, which was duly sanctioned.
In May 1999, the supply of electricity to the respondents factory was discontinued at the latters request.
After one year and seven months, the respondent approached the Board for reduction of load from 600 KVA to 250 KVA.
The companypetent authority of the Board accepted the respondents request, who then executed another agreement dated 21st September, 1998.
This was followed by numberice dated 4.5.2000 and recovery certificate dated 4.8.2000 issued under Sections 3 and 5 respectively of the U.P. Government Electricity Undertakings Recovery of Dues Act, 1958 for short, the 1958 Act.
As a sequel to this, fresh agreement was executed between the parties for the total load of 600 KVA.
The respondent had set up a factory at Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which number forms part of the State of Uttarakhand for manufacture of PVC and EPDM rubber profiles for automobile vehicles.
S. Singhvi, J. Whether the respondent, who was a companysumer of electricity supplied by Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board for short, the Board predecessor of appellant No.1 herein is liable to pay minimum charges in terms of second proviso to para 11 of agreement dated 21st September, 1998 read with Clause 17 ii of the Electricity Supply Consumers Regulations, 1984 for short, the Regulations after disconnection of the supply of electricity is the question which arises for companysideration in this appeal.
