JUDGMENT : A.K. Padhi, J. - The Petitioner, a Private Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office At/P.O. Asurali, Bhadrak, District-Balasore manufactures various items of paper products. The Petitioner company had entered into a contract on 29-7-1987 with Orissa State Electricity Board, opp. party No. 2 under which opp. party No. 2 had agreed to supply electric energy to the Petitioner-company up to a maximum demand of 219 KVA/97 KW (which is hereinafter referred to as 'the contract demand') during the continuance of the agreement. The tariff rate as per the contract consists of two parts, namely, demand charges and energy charges. 2. According to the Petitioner, the notices for payment of electric charges which had been served on the Petitioner company, are not sustainable in law as while drawing of such bills, opp. party No. 4 had not taken into consideration the tariff concession granted by the State Government (opp. party No. 1) by the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1986. As the bills were drawn without taking into consideration the concession which the Petitioner company is entitled to as per the resolution, the Petitioner objected and did not pay the bills, the notice of disconnection has been issued for such nonpayment. 3.In the writ application the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the bills for the months of December, 1987, January, 1988 and February, 1988 as per Annexures-21, 22 and 23 and the notice of disconnection as per Annexure-24 dated 17-3-1988 issued u/s 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act. 4. Opp. parties 2, 3 and 4 have filed a return. In the return, it has been averred that the Petitioner company is entitled to get the benefit of the Industrial Policy Resolution; 1986. The Industrial Policy Resolution only exempts the payment of the minimum charges. Opp. party No. 2 has drawn the bills by taking into consideration the industrial policy resolution, 1986 and in the bills no minimum charges has been levied while drawing the bills. In the bills only the contract demand and the actual consumption of the electrical energy have been charged. Annexures 21, 22 and 23, the bills which have been served on the Petitioner indicates that the Petitioner company has been charged on two heads, namely, (a) demand charges and (b) energy charges along with unpaid dues for the past months by the Petitioner-company. 5. Annexures 21, 22 and 23, the bills which have been served on the Petitioner indicates that the Petitioner company has been charged on two heads, namely, (a) demand charges and (b) energy charges along with unpaid dues for the past months by the Petitioner-company. 5. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the Petitioner is liable to pay demand charges and also the energy charges. 6. According to the contract in between the Petitioner-company and opp. party No. 2 the tariff rates are as follows: (a) This tariff rate shall be applicable to supply of power industrial purposes with contract demand of 110KVA/ 100KW and above supplied at 11 or 33KV at one pain t of supply. The voltage of supply shall be at the sale discretion of the Board. (b) The monthly charges shall be: Demand charges at Rs. 35.00 per KVA of maximum demand or 80% of contract demand whichever is higher plus energy charges at the following rate on units metered, less units billed separately under (f) and (g) below, without prejudice to the payment of monthly minimum charges as given in (c) below. (i) Paise 44 for each unit for industries with contract demand; of 100 KW and above upto but excluding 500 KW. (ii) Paise 48 for each unit for industries with contract demand of 500KVA and above upto but excluding l000 KW. (iii) Paise 52 for each unit of industries with contract demand of 1000 KW and above. (c) The monthly minimum charges shall be calculated at the above rates, on a demand of 80 per cent of contract demand, and on units calculated at an average power factor of 0.9 and an average load factor of 20 per cent on the said contract demand. (d) When metering is done at the low voltage side of consumer's transformer, the computed transformer losses shall be added to the reading of the meters both for energy and for demand, to arrive at the energy and demand for billing purpose in the following manner. (i) Energy loss in transformer-Units per month. The bills reflect that opp. party No. 2 has drawn the bills on two part tariff (a) demand charges; and (b) energy charges. (i) Energy loss in transformer-Units per month. The bills reflect that opp. party No. 2 has drawn the bills on two part tariff (a) demand charges; and (b) energy charges. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that as per the Industrial Policy Resolution which reads as follows: (C) POWER: (i) Exemption of Electricity Duty: (i) No minimum charge will be levied in respect of industrial units with a contract demand upto 500 KVA. In other words, the energy bill will be made on the basis of average monthly consumption of energy. New units will also be exempted from payment of electricity duty for a period of five years from the date of power connection. (ii) Industrial units with a contract demand between 500 KVA and 5000 KVA will be exempted from payment of 75% of electricity duty for a period of five years from the date of power connection if they are located in Zone 'A'. The above exemption will be 25% in respect of the industries located in Zone 'B'. (iii) Industrial units with a contract demand between, 5000 KVA and 10,000 KVA will be exempted from payment of 50% of electricity duty payable for a period of five years from the date of power connection if they are set up in Zone 'A'. the company is not required to pay the demand charges but is only required to pay energy charges. The learned Advocate for the opp. party No. 2 submits that the only exemption under the industrial policy resolution is the minimum charges and the consumer is required to pay the demand charges and the charges for the energy which is consumed by consumer. In the bills no minimum charges have been charged and the bills have been drawn taking into consideration the Industrial Policy Resolution. 7. In an identical situation considered by this Court in East India Engineering Company Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board and Another their Lordships after taking into consideration the Industrial Policy Resolution and all the other clauses under the relevant act have observed: ... 7. In an identical situation considered by this Court in East India Engineering Company Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board and Another their Lordships after taking into consideration the Industrial Policy Resolution and all the other clauses under the relevant act have observed: ... What has been exempted under the Industrial Policy is the payment of such minimum charges but not the demand charges which is payable, because the quantity of energy contracted has been reserved and/or kept ready to be supplied to the consumer/as per his requirement as and when required by the consumer during the continuance of the term of agreement. 'Maximum Demand' as defined under Clause 3(xx) means the average amount of kilowatts or kilovolt-amperes, as the case may be, delivered to the point of supply of the consumer and recorded during a thirty minutes period of maximum use in the month or it shall mean twice the largest number of kilowatt hours (K.H.) or kilovolt ampere hours (K.V.A.H.) delivered to the point of supply by the consumer during any consecutive 30 minutes' period. During the period of discontinuances of electric supply as in the present case, there shall be no question of any maximum demand as there has been no supply of electric energy at all. In such a case, the other mode of calculating the "demand charges" is bound to be adopted. The commutation of demand charges in the aforesaid alternative method does not depend upon the consumption of energy and, therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the demand charges cannot be computed in the absence of supply of electric energy cannot be accepted. In other words, the Industrial Policy Resolution does not exempt the consumer from payment of the "demand charges" and, therefore, the Petitioner is liable to pay the "demand charges" even though supply of power to the Petitioner-firm was disconnected on 21-3-1986. In our opinion, the ratio of the above case is applicable to this case and the Petitioner-company is bound to pay the demand charges and the energy charges. The bills as per annexures 21, 22 and 23 are in accordance with the Regulation and also in accordance with the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986. In the result, the writ application has no merit and is liable to be dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The bills as per annexures 21, 22 and 23 are in accordance with the Regulation and also in accordance with the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986. In the result, the writ application has no merit and is liable to be dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. G.B. Patnaik, J. I agree. Writ application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed