- (1.) Heard the parties on merits for final disposal at this stage.
(2.) Petitioner prays for quashing the revised bills raised on the basis of hundred per cent of the contract demand, for the first 12 months from the date of commencement of supply of electricity energy.
(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Tariff notification dated 15- 3-2000, (Annexure-B) did not change the second part of stipulation contained in Clause 4 (c) of the Agreement (Annexure-1). It is further submitted that on the basis of the agreement dated 14-9-2004, read with the tariff applicable, petitioner was liable to pay the maximum demand charges for the first 12 months of the commencement of supply (i.e. 13-9-2004), on the actual recording of maximum demand for the month. It is further submitted that for the first seven months, the bills were issued correctly i.e. on the actual recording of maximum demand but thereafter the impugned demands have been served. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Indian Aluminium Company v. Kerala State Electricity Board reported in 1975 (2) SCC 414 : (AIR 1975 SC 1967).;