1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4319/1998 Jodhpur Marbles Stone and Chips Co., Jodhpur Versus Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur & Ors. Date of Order :: 16th July, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR None present, for the petitioner. Mr. G.M.Bhandari, for the respondents. .... A 45 HP low tension electricity connection was given to the petitioner by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) as a consequent to execution of an agreement dated 11.3.1981 containing a condition as follows:- “The consumer is to pay minimum guarantee consumption amount of Rs.5400/- or minimum charges its capital works of laying mains etc, even of the consumer does not take the connection for a period of two years whichever is higher or as soon as the Board has completed.” The Board charged minimum charges from the petitioner, therefore, relying upon a circular dated 3.4.1980 (RSEB/32(C)F.4(58)TF/B.1267) the petitioner by way of filing a petition for writ claimed to be charged with actual consumption of electricity only. The petition for writ aforesaid was disposed of by an order dated 26.2.1997 directing the petitioner to approach the settlement committee constituted by the 2 Board. The committee after considering the representation made by the petitioner held as under:- “it is found that the agreement as per provision of rules so executed between RSEB and consumer at thetime of release of power connection was that the consumer will pay the minimum guarantee per year or monthly minimum charges whichever is higher dring first five years. The amount of monthly minimm dharges as per tariff is/was higher than the amount of minimum guarantee per year/month.” Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ was filed. It is contended in the petition that the settlement committee failed to appreciate that the petitioner should have been charged only for actual consumption of electricity as per circular dated 3.4.1980. It is further contended that the settlement committee should have given complete reasons if it was of the view that the circular aforesaid was not having application upon then petitioner. In reply to the writ petition it is stated that the minimum charges for electricity connection were settled against the petitioner in light of the agreement executed with a condition that the consumer have to pay minimum guarantee consumption amount or 3 minimum charges, whichever is higher. The respondents also contended that the circular dated 3.4.1980 was having no application upon the petitioner as the agreement was executed subsequent thereto. Heard the counsel for the respondents. The electricity connection was given to the petitioner under an agreement with a condition that the consumer have to pay minimum guarantee amount or minimum charges, whichever is higher. The respondents charged the petitioner on basis of minimum charges being higher to minimum guarantee amount. This was made in accordance with the agreement executed between the parties. The circular dated 3.4.1980 was rightly ignored by the settlement committee as it was having no application for agreement that was executed in the year 1981. In view of whatever said above, I do not find any merit in this petition for writ. The same is accordingly dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.