Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14th February, 2013 delivered by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3005 of 1998 (R) whereby the petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) was allowed and hence, the original respondents have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: "The respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) has a Cold Storage situated in the city of Ranchi who had entered into an agreement dated 22nd June, 1983 with the appellants for continuous supply of electricity of 95 KVA which was a High Tension connection. The said agreement was enforced initially for three years and the same was continued without there being any written agreement for subsequent periods. It appears that as per Clause 9(a) of the said agreement, if, any party wants to terminate the contract he has to give a notice of not less than twelve months. The said notice of termination was given by the respondent (original petitioner) to the appellants on 16th June, 1994 which was received by the appellants in July, 1994. Thus, as per Clause 9(a) of the said agreement the agreement cease to exist with effect from the end of the year 1995. It appears that there ought to have been disconnection of the electricity supply latest by 31st July, 1995, but, the appellants on their own continued the supply of electricity which was consumed by the respondent No. 1 (original petitioner). Thus, on and from 1st of August, 1995 the supply of electricity was continued up to 26th September, 1996 even after termination of the contract which led to dispute between the parties mainly for the Annual Minimum Guaranteed charges. These appellants raised a bill including AMG up to 26th September, 1996 and even thereafter also up to 31st March, 1998. Thus, AMG charges were demanded even after disconnection of the electricity and therefore, petition was preferred by the respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) bearing C.W.J.C. No. 3005 of 1998 (R)which was decided in favour of the respondent No. 1 by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14th February, 2013 and therefore, original respondents had preferred this Letters Patent Appeal."
(2.) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS: "Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges (hereinafter referred to as AMG charges) is levied on the basis of tariff prescribed by these appellants in pursuance of power conferred upon the Electricity Board under Sec. 49 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. All the consumers who are consuming electricity are bound by tariff. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that respondent No. 1 is liable to make payment of AMG charges for the period of three years from the year 1995, because the notice of termination was given in the month of June, 1994 which was received in the month of July, 1994 and therefore, for three years thereafter the respondent is liable to make payment of AMG charges. Thus, on the basis of Clause -8 to be r/w Clause 9(b) of the said agreement even after disconnection of electricity the respondent No. 1 has to pay Annual Minimum Guaranteed Charges up to 31st March, 1998. It is further submitted by counsel for the appellants that the respondent No. 1 had consumed the electricity up to 26th September, 1996 and therefore, this respondent No. 1 is liable to make payment of all types of charges like Demand charge, Energy charge and Annual Minimum Guaranteed charge. These aspects of the matter have also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while passing the order impugned, deserves to be quashed and set -aside. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon Clause Nos. 8 and 9 (b) of the said agreement mainly for his argument in this Letters Patent Appeal."
(3.) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: "Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) submitted that a contract was entered into between the appellants and respondent No. 1 on 22nd June, 1983 for supply of electricity of 95 KVA. Initially, the contract was for three years which was also continued for subsequent years. Thereafter, a notice for termination of contract was given by the respondent No. 1 on 16th June, 1994 which was received by the appellants in the month of July, 1995. This notice was given as per Clause 9 (a) of the said Agreement which is annexed as Annexure 1 to the memo of the petition. It has further been submitted that by virtue of Clause 9(a), the agreement cease to exist with effect from 1st of August, 1995 and the appellants should have disconnected the electricity by end of July 1995. Though, for any reason, whatsoever, the contract comes to an end and the appellants had not disconnected the electricity even after 1st August, 1995 and ultimately, the electricity was disconnected on 26th September, 1996. As the respondent No. 1 had consumed the electricity with effect from 1st August, 1995 till 26th September, 1996 as such, he had paid demand charges and energy charges, but, unreasonable demand of these appellants about payment of annual minimum guaranteed charges for the aforesaid period and also for the period after disconnection of the electricity was challenged in the writ petition. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) submitted that once a contract comes to an end as per Clause 9(a) of the said agreement the annual minimum guaranteed Charges also comes to an end. In fact, there was no demand of electricity at all by the respondent No. 1 from the appellants and therefore, annual minimum guaranteed charges cannot be levied by these appellants. This aspect of the matter has been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that in fact as per Clause 4 of the said agreement, once the contract comes to an end, even, the applicability of the proviso which empowers the appellants to apply tariff rate does not remain enforce. In fact, such type of supply of electricity on and from 1st August, 1995, without any demand of the respondent No. 1 is in fact, governed by Sec. 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and thus, rates prescribed under the tariff are not applicable and once it is not applicable the question of levying annual minimum guaranteed charges whatsoever not arises. As per Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the tariff rates prescribed in the Tariff are not applicable. Nonetheless, the respondent No. 1 has already paid demand charges and energy charges, but, major dispute has been raised by the respondent regarding payment of Annual Minimum Guaranteed charges. These appellants have demanded Annual Minimum Guaranteed charges even after termination of the electricity connection which is absolutely absurd demand. In fact, Annual Minimum Guaranteed charges are not payable by the respondents after the contract comes to an end. The basic concept of the Annual Minimum Guarantee has arisen because there is a demand of certain quantity of electricity which must be supplied continuously by the Electric Board and in the event, if the consumers are consuming less than the minimum consumption of the electricity mentioned in the agreement then he has to pay annual minimum guaranteed charges. These facts are not in existence in this case. In the facts of the present case twelve months notice has to be given as per Clause 9(a) for termination of the contract which was given on 16th June, 1994 and was received by the appellants in the month of July, 1995 and, therefore, contract comes to an end latest by 31st July, 1995 and hence, there is no question of minimum guarantee of supply of electricity remains in existence. These aspects of the matter have been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (a) : (1990) 1 SCC 731 paragraph 11 and 24 (b) : (1990)1 SCC 741 paragraph 5 On the basis of the aforesaid two decisions it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the consumer of the electricity is liable to make payment of Annual Minimum Guaranteed charges till the contract remains in existence. Once the contract comes to an end, the liability of payment of Annual Minimum Guaranteed charges comes to an end. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.";