VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a mine owner in village Majhoria, District Sawai Madhopur. He was given electric connection for running his mine in the year 1979. THE petitioner states that for the reason that the electricity connection was disconnected by the respondent itself, and therefore, the provisions of minimum charges should not be made applicable to petitioner's mine. THE electric connection of the mine belonging to petitioner was disconnected on 30. 6. 81. It is submitted by the petitioner that respondent itself had disconnected the electric connection and therefore at least from the date of disconnection the petitioner was not liable to pay any electric charges and therefore the bill submitted for payment for the period when factory remained disconnected and notices issued thereafter in the month of August, 1981 (Annexure 5 & 6) were illegal and not payable. THE electric connection remained disconnected at the instance of electricity department itself right upto 23. 4. 82 and therefore any demand made from petitioner for the period 30. 6. 81 to 23. 4. 82 cannot be termed to be legal and justified.
(2.) IT is not disputed by respondent that for the reason that the petitioner had not paid minimum charges prior to June, 1981 therefore, the electric connection was withdrawn from the premises of petitioner and there was no electric connection at all for the period from 30. 6. 81 to 23. 4. 82. A number of correspondence had been exchanged between the parties. There was another disconnection on 5. 8. 82 for the same reason and even upto today the petitioner has not been granted reconnection and he is running industry with alternative means without any electricity being supplied by RSEB. The prayer has been made to quash the demand notice annexure-14 and further not to make any demand for the period when the industry of petitioner remained totally disconnected because of the action on the part of RSEB. From the above facts it becomes clear that the RSEB itself had disconnected the electric connection for the periods mentioned above, but in any case from 5. 8. 1982, the RSEB had stopped supplying the electricity to the petitioner nor the petitioner was interested to have it reconnected. Question arises whether in such situation where the electricity department itself disconnects the connection and does not supply electricity, can it still ask the consumer to pay the minimum charges. It is true that in case the electricity connection is given and the consumer does not consume the electricity to the minimum consumption, as per agreement, the Board can if there is an agreement for supply of electricity with the stipulation to pay minimum guaranteed charges, irrespective of whether energy was consumed or not can claim the minimum charges and the consumer is bound to pay the same. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna & others vs. M/s. Green Rubber Industries and others (1) that the every contract is to be considered with reference to its object and the whole of its terms and accordingly the whole context must be considered in endeavouring to collect the intention of the parties, even though the immediate object of enquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause. The Supreme Court further held that this agreement with the stipulation of minimum guaranteed charges cannot be held to be ultra vires on the ground that it is incompatible with the statutory duty and the difference between this contractual element and the statutory duty have to be observed. The case of Green Rubber Industries was, where the connection was cut off on 28. 09. 1981 at the request of the industry itself and the minimum bills were submitted for the months of June, July, August a. 09. 1981 which were challenged by the industry on the ground that no electricity was consumed during that period. The High Court had taken a view that the Board itself having effected the disconnection it was not entitled to any charges for the period after September 1981 under Clause 9 of the agreement.
(3.) IT was held by the Supreme Court that the answer depends on the agreement itself. The agreement stated that minimum charges had to be paid irrespective of the fact whether the electricity had been consumed or not. IT was mentioned in the agree-ment if any bill remains unpaid, the Board will discontinue the supply after giving seven days notice. However, it was mentioned under Cl. 8 and 10 of the agreement that the agreement shall be enforceable for the period of not less than two years in the first instance, from the date of commencement of the supply and u/cl. 9 and it was mentio-ned that the consumers shall not be at liberty to determine this agreement before the expiration of two years from the date of commencement of supply of energy. In the present case, none of the parties had placed on record the agreement or clauses of agreement despite the opportunities having been given to the respondents on 9. 12. 1998 by this court to produce the copy of the agreement for the perusal of the court and, therefore, until and unless the agreement is produced for perusal, the authorities cited by the petitioner become distinguishable. But apart from above, the writ petition is to be allowed for the reasons that the Board itself had taken a decision on 16. 1. 1995 under circular No. RSEB/dco/c-1/f. 4 (115)95/d. 149, which reads as under; COMML-15 No. RSEB/dco/c-1/f4 (115)95/d. 149 Dated 16. 1. 95 ORDEr Sub-Stopping billing after date of disconnection in respect of all categories of consumers and prescribing policy for reconnection of such disconnected consumer. The Board in its 443rd meeting held on 6. 1. 95 has decided to stop billing after date of disconnection in respect of all categories of consumers. When such disconnected consumer requests for reconnection of supply, the supply would be allowed to be reconnected after realising the dues on the date of disconnection plus 18% per annum interest there upon till reconnection of supply. Besides above the consumer will also pay the reconnection charges and charges for relaying of service line if applicable as per prevailing rates and completes all other required formalities. Power for reconnection shall be exercised by the billing authority. In the case of large industrial category of consumers such power would vest with Director (Comml. Operations) RSEB, Jaipur. This decision would be applicable retrospectively and also prospectively. In the past cases, in categories of consumers whatever amount was billed after date of disconnection would be scrapped from Board's books and only that amount would remain outstanding against each such consumer which was due on the date of disconnection. Detailed guidelines in this regard would be issued by the Finance Wing of the Board. However, the cases already decided and connections reconnected, shall not be re-opened. ;