- (1.) By this application the petitioner consumer being the limited company has challenged the constitutional validity of Clause 16(1) of the Agreement entered into between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No.1 to the extent the same mandates Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges (hereinafter referred to in short as 'AMGR') even during the period the petitioner's supply line remains disconnected, and also asks for relief by setting aside and/or quashing the bill for payment of AMGR for the period 1996- 97 and 1997-98.
(2.) The petitioner had been a consumer of bulk supply from the respondent No. 1 for which a written agreement in specified format was entered into between them. Under the format the period of contract was for five years during which neither of the parties could unilaterally determine the same. There was no dispute and differences with regard to the performance of the contractual obligation of the parties mutually till September 1994. The petitioner had paid all the dues and charges including the AMGR irrespective of consumption of electric energy till 1994. The five years' period expired some time in 1991, and after expiry of the first five years' period the petitioner continued to consume the electric energy without any dispute whatsoever till 11th January, 1992 when fire broke out in the factory premises of the petitioner destroying amongst others all electrical installations and thereby the petitioner was prevented from consuming electric energy. The intimation of such breaking out of the fire was given to the Board. Since then there has been no consumption as stated by the writ petitioner. Ultimately, the Board disconnected the supply line in the month of September 1994 and there was no resumption of supply line since then. It appears on 15th July, 1996 the writ petitioner asked the Board for restoration of supply line on certain terms and conditions. However, the Board by its letter dated 3rd September, 1996 declined to accept those terms and conditions. Rather the Board put forward certain terms and conditions and asked for execution of the fresh agreement. The aforesaid facts are not denied in the Affidavit in Opposition, I rather comment that the same are more or less admitted.
(3.) Thereafter the Board, instead of restoring the supply line, raised a bill and demanded payment of the AMGR for the period 1996-97 amounting to Rs. 9,08,200/- and for the period 1997-98 amounting to Rs. 20,46,000/-, thus aggregating more or less 30 lakhs. The Board had also threatened to invoke the bank guarantee as it was not renewed.;