GOPIKRISHNA S KYAL Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition involves consideration of two Principal questions formulated a under :

(2.) THE relevant facts having bearing on the subject matter of this petition are as under:

(3.) THE first question which arises for consideration of the Court is whether the impugned demand for minimum charges and delayed payment charges is without authority of law. Prima facie there is no merit in the challenge of the petitioner on this aspect. In its judgments in the case of (Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and others v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries and others) A. I. R. 1990 S. C. 699 and in the case of (General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board and others v. Rajeshwar Singh and others) A. I. R. 1990 S. C. 706, the Apex Court held that mere disconnection of electricity supply did not lead to termination of contract and the liability to pay minimum guarantee charges under the agreement continued to subsist. Prima facie, the said agreement was never terminated and the supply is restored under the same agreement i. e. agreement dated 13th July, 1973, and not under a new agreement. However, I need not pursue the discussion on this question any further in view of the relief which I propose to grant to the petitioner while dealing with the second question.