JUDGMENT Satya Brata Sanyal, J.: 1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Bihar Sharif by which he has disallowed the claim of the petitioner for payment of annual minimum guarantee charges, comprise an amount of Rs. 786 30, for the period October, 1969 to July, 1970. The suit wall both for energy charges from July, 1970, to August, 1971, as well as the annual minimum guarantee charges, indicated above. 2. The trial court decreed the suit in its entire. The appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court only in respect of the decree in relation to the annual minimum guarantee charges. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner claimed that there is contract between the parties and the agreement provide payment of annual minimum guarantee charges. It is said that 7.5 H P. load of electrical energy was energized for agricultural purposes. It is said that the consume agreed to the payment of the actual energy charges as the annual minimum guarantee charges. Admittedly, line had been disconnected for non-payment of energy charges and the minimum guarantee charges. The reason assigned by the court below for non-suiting the plaintiff to its claim for annual minimum guarantee charges is the failure of the plaintiff to produce any agreement incorporating the acceptance of the said liability. With respect to the actual consumption, the court of appeal below held that there bring benefit derived they arc bound to disgorge the said benefit by making payment for the actual consumption of energy even though the petitioner failed to produce any agreement of supply of electrical energy. 4. I do not find that the judgment of the court below is vitiated by any error of jurisdiction or is viced by any material irregularity or illegality. The right to realise charge for energy which has not been consumed by a consumer must be by virtue of a contract between the parties. Annual minimum guarantee charge, as is well known, as is charge which a consumer is required to pay, if he fails to consume certain amount of electrical energy. It is really the difference between the actual energy consumed and the energy which the consumer ought to have consumed. A decree for the charges for the energy consumed. however, stands on a different footing. It is really the difference between the actual energy consumed and the energy which the consumer ought to have consumed. A decree for the charges for the energy consumed. however, stands on a different footing. But, to fasten a liability to pay for something which has not been enjoyed, must be a subject matter of express contract between the parties. The court below has found that no contract whatsoever has been proved before it. No evidence even has been led to prove an oral contract between the parties. In that view of the matter, I do not find that the judgment of the court below is in any way vitiated. 5. Mr. Lakshman Saran Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the payment of minimum guarantee charges would be an implied term of contract for the supply of electrical energy. In support of the proposition, he relies upon decision of State vs. Inderchand Jain. It may be so. The said case lays down that if pursuant to an advertisement of supplier of electrical energy, one takes the supply after such an advertisement, there is by implication an acceptance of the terms contained therein. It was further held that the respondents did, by their conduct accept the terms notified and thereby made themselves liable to pay charges for the units fixed for minimum consumption of electrical energy every year. 6. In the case of State (supra) the concept and of minimum charges was neither argued nor elucidated. The "annual minimum guarantee units" had to be worked out on the basis of contract demand, multiplied by various factors, i.e., power factor, load factor, etc. The tariff provides for various categories of services and the rate of charges also vary for different kinds of services. In the Compendium of Revenue Circulars and Orders of Bihar State Electricity Board, 1962-74, Volume I, various forms of agreements are to be found. Before the constitution of the Board, the Government of Bihar in the Department of Electricity, by Notification of the 16th November, 1954, laid down terms and conditions for the supply of electrical energy by the Government Electricity Department. The said notification as well required execution of an agreement, which a consumer is required to execute at the time of taking supply. The Board has adopted the said notification, as a part of their tariff (see Rajeshwar Singh vs. Slate of Bihar) 7. The said notification as well required execution of an agreement, which a consumer is required to execute at the time of taking supply. The Board has adopted the said notification, as a part of their tariff (see Rajeshwar Singh vs. Slate of Bihar) 7. Conceding the proposition about the possibility of an implied term of contract to pay the minimum guarantee charges, for the supply of energy, the question still remains what was the contract demand in order to calculate the said charges? There is no evidence either oral or documentary indicative or contract demand. It is well settled that in the event the consumer consumes the entire minimum units to read out on the basis of contract demand, the question of payment of annual minimum charge does not at all arise (see Rajeshwar Singh supra). Further, there must be evidence to show that the Board did supply the minimum units, which the consumer failed to consume. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Board. The Case of State (supra) is clearly distinguishable. These difficulties may not arise for energy actually consumed which has to be paid for according to the rates shown in the tariff. 8. In this case, the judgment was dictated in open Court on 31st January, 1984, but, as Mr. Sinha wanted to cite decision and make further submission. I postponed signing the judgment. After having heard him again. I reserved the judgment. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision application is dismissed but without any costs. Application dismissed.