THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17932 OF 2003 ORDER: The petitioner-industry has been functioning since, 1996. In view of certain objections raised by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, the industry was closed on 13.09.2000 and it started functioning from 23.03.2003, after complying with the objections raised by the A.P. Pollution Control Board. It is stated that when closure of the industry was ordered by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, the power supply was disconnected by A.P. TRANSCO. During the said period of disconnection, the petitioner-industry did not carry on any manufacturing activity. However, the Superintending Engineer, Sangareddy, by letter dated 7.01.2002 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,23,684/- towards electricity charges from 13.09.2001 till the end of December, 2001 under the threat of termination of the agreement and disconnection of power supply. The petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent bringing to his notice that the power supply was disconnected on their own as per the directions of the A.P. Pollution Control Board, and therefore, the petitioner-industry may be permitted to pay the amount demanded in five monthly equal instalments. The said request was rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the waiver of minimum consumption charges for the period of disconnection cannot be granted. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, this Writ Petition is filed contending that the respondents are not justified in demanding payment of minimum consumption charges for the period during which the industrial unit was admittedly closed. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Medek Circle, filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents. Though the fact that the power supply to the petitioner- industry was disconnected as per the orders of the A.P. Pollution Control Board has not been disputed, it is explained that the petitioner-industry is liable to pay the minimum charges for the period of disconnection as per Clause 33.2 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply. The said fact was informed to the petitioner by letter dated 7.01.2002. It is also stated that as requested by the petitioner it was granted four equal monthly instalments and the power supply was restored on payment of the first instalment on 27.03.2003. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Clause 33.2 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply may be extracted hereunder: “Minimum charges shall be payable by the consumer as specified in the tariffs for different categories of consumers. This obligation shall be absolute. The minimum charges will be payable by the consumer even if no electricity is actually consumed, for any reason whatsoever and also if the charges for electricity consumed are less than the minimum charges. The minimum charges will be payable even if electricity is not consumed because supply has been disconnected by the Company because of non- payment of electricity charges, pilferage, other malpractices or for any other valid reason.” A bare reading of the above Clause makes it clear that the petitioner-industry is bound to pay the minimum charges, even though no electricity was consumed from September, 2001 till March, 2002 for any reason whatsoever. However, the petitioner while placing reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench i n A.B.S.E.Board v. M/s K.K.Sugar Industry contended that notwithstanding Clause 33.2, the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount of charges demanded by the respondents for the period during which the power supply was disconnected. In the said case, the contract in question did not contain any Clause that the minimum charges shall be payable even after disconnection of electricity. That apart, the contract was executed much prior to the proceedings under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 prescribing Terms and Conditions of Supply of the electricity. In the circumstances, the Division Bench held that the Department cannot insist on payment of minimum charges after disconnection of the electricity. The ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the particular facts and circumstances of the said case is not applicable to the case on hand, since admittedly, as per clause 33.2 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, the consumer is bound to pay the minimum charges. It is also not in dispute that the Terms and Conditions of Supply notified in B.P.Ms.No.690 dated 17.09.1975 under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, shall be applicable to the petitioner who is availing supply of electricity from the Board. That apart, admittedly, having considered the request of the petitioner- industry, the 2nd respondent permitted the petitioner to pay the amount in monthly instalments and the petitioner had already paid some of the instalments. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________ (G. ROHINI, J.) January 27, 2006. Kgr THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17932 OF 2003 January , 2006. Between: M/s Everest Organics Limited, Factory at Village Aroor, Sadasivapet Mandal, Medak District, represented by its Managing Director – Dr. S.K. Srihari Raju. .. Petitioner. And Central Power Distribution Company of A.P., Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents.