JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Legal representatives of the appellant-defendant are containing this appeal on death of the appellant. Appeal is against a decree for realisation of Rs. 21,229.40 paise with pendente lite and future interest 6% per annum and costs. This amount represents the minimum charges for consumption of electricity as per the agreement between the period June, 1971 and October, 1973. 2. On taking lease of a factory of the Company M/s. Orissa Cord Mills Limited for producing hard boards, defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for supply of electric energy to the factory installed at Jagatpur on 26.10.1968. Under the agreement Ext. 1 plaintiff agreed to supply electricity for five years to the defendant for running the factory. The period comes to an end on 26th October, 1973. Case of Plaintiffs that a sum of Rs. 11,481.74paise remained outstanding against defendant towards electrical energy supplied to him from August, 1970 onwards. A notice was served upon the defendant calling upon him to pay the arrear dues which was communicated to defendant on 22.1:1971. Since the defendant failed to clear up the dues on or before 31.1.1971, electric supply to the factory of the defendant was stopped by disconnecting the supply line on 1.2.1971. Despite disconnection, agreement remained in force till 26-10-1973 and as such the defendent is liable to pay the minimum charges in accordance with Clause 13 of the agreement on the maximum power demand of 75 K.W. in addition to the minimum charge defendant is also liable to pay surcharge at 10% and metre rent @ Rs. 5/- per month. Thus, defendant is liable to pay Rs. 21,299.40 paise for the period between 1.6.1971 to 26.10.1973. 3. Case of defendant is that defendant occupied the premises where the factory is situated on the basis of a lease deed from the owner for one year and the same was extended for one more year till. 31.8.1970. Agreement was not renewed thereafter and consequently he has not consumed any enegry since 31.8.1970. In this situation the agreement with the plaintiff became infructuous since August 1970 and plaintiff is not-entiled to any amount from the defendant. 4. In the trial Court, plaintifs examined nine witnesses and proved documents marked Exts. 1to17. Defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and proved documents marked Exts. A to Ext. B/1. In this situation the agreement with the plaintiff became infructuous since August 1970 and plaintiff is not-entiled to any amount from the defendant. 4. In the trial Court, plaintifs examined nine witnesses and proved documents marked Exts. 1to17. Defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and proved documents marked Exts. A to Ext. B/1. Considering the materials on record, trial court held that plaintiff is liable to pay the amount and decreed the suit which is grievance of the appellant. 5. Mr, Bijan Ray, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that agreement Ext. 1 does not envisage payment of minimum charges during the period of disconnection and accordingly, trial court is not correct in decreeing the suit. It is submitted by Mr. Ray that liablility of the defentand flows from the agreement which if construed would not include the payment of minimum charges during the period of disconnection more particularly in the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that minimum charges are to be paid during the subsistence of the agreement whether the defendant actually consumed the electricity. Therefore, in absence of any specific agreement that the minumum charges would not be paid during the period of disconnection, defendant is liable to pay the charges. 7. In the decision reported Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Others Vs. Green Rubber Industries and Others it was held that agreement containing payment of minimum charges is not unreasonable inasmuch as the supply of electricity to a consumer involves incurring of overhead installation expenses by the Board which do not vary with the quantity of electricity consumed and the installation has to be continued irrespective of whether the energy is consumed or not until the agreement comes to an end. It was held:- .........Every contract is to be considered with reference to its object and the whole of its terms and accordingly the whole context must be considered in endeavouring to collect the intention of the parties.......... In the said decision, clause 4 of the agreement involved in that case taken into consideration where it was provided that a consumer shall have to pay minimum charges irrespective of whether energy to that extent has been consumed or not. (such minumum charges referred to as "the minimum guaranteed charges" in other places in the agreement). 8. In the said decision, clause 4 of the agreement involved in that case taken into consideration where it was provided that a consumer shall have to pay minimum charges irrespective of whether energy to that extent has been consumed or not. (such minumum charges referred to as "the minimum guaranteed charges" in other places in the agreement). 8. Reasonableness of the stipulation to pay minimum guaranteed charges as has been held in Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Others Vs. Green Rubber Industries and Others, was relied upon by the Supreme Court in a later decision reported in M/s. Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and others, The purpose of prescribing minimum charges as stated earlier by the Supreme Court was reiterated. 9. It is no doubt true that the purpose of providing for minimum charges in the agreement is to make provision in advance for the cost of overhead charges to maintain the line. If there, would have been a clause in the agreement like clause 4 considered by the Supreme Court in Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Others Vs. Green Rubber Industries and Others, the question might have been different. 10. Learned Counsel for respondent-plaintiff submitted that Clause 1 of the agrement clearly stipulates that the agreement shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date of supply and thereafter shall so continue unless and until the sane shall be determined by either party giving to the other six calendar months in writing of his intention to terminate the agreement. Clause 6 provide for minimum payment. It reads as follows:- The consumer shall begin to take electrical energy from the supplier within thirty days from the date on which intimation in writing to the consumer by the supplier is given to the effect that the supply of energy as specified in clause 3 is available. In case the consumer does not take the supply within the aforesaid period, the supplier shall charge the monthly minimum payment as specified in clause 13 below from the date of expiry of the thirteenth day from the date of intimation. In case the consumer does not take the supply within the aforesaid period, the supplier shall charge the monthly minimum payment as specified in clause 13 below from the date of expiry of the thirteenth day from the date of intimation. The consumer shall be liable to pay the charge within thirty days from the date of written demand for the same failing which the supplier shall be free to adjust the charges against the security against the pledged National Saving certificates of Bank Fidelity Guarantee, as the case may be, without prejudice to any other remedy he may be entitled to. Clause 13 deals with the various charges to be paid, where the provision relating to minimum charge is as follows:- Minimum charge :- A minimum charge of Ps. 5/- per B.H.P. or Rs. 6.50 per KW of contract demand per month shall be paid. 11. While Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no speciffic stipulation for payment of minimum charges during the pendency of disconnection, Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the minimum charge as specified in clause 13 includes the charges of the contract demand per month and includes the period of disconnections also. 12. In the agreement the general conditions have been appendend which authorises the plaintiff to cut off electrical energy if the consumer fails to make payment regularly as provided in general condition no. 12(i). Clause 13 provides for penalty for the late payment. There, is no specific provision for disconnection for late payment. Irregular payment as provided in the general condition referred to does not include late payment, which is permissible under the terms of the contract. However, u/s 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, a supplier has been vested with power to disconnect supply. In the present case the disconnection is not in exercise of the power under general condition no. 12(i) as the same is on account of non-payment of the demanded dues. This is in exercise of the power u/s 24 of the Electricity Act. There is no specific provision under the agreement that where the statutory power is exercised by the plaintiff, minimum charges are to be paid. 12(i) as the same is on account of non-payment of the demanded dues. This is in exercise of the power u/s 24 of the Electricity Act. There is no specific provision under the agreement that where the statutory power is exercised by the plaintiff, minimum charges are to be paid. On perusal of the entire agreement, it is clear that it was never intendend that the minimum charges are to be paid where the supply is disconnected on account of default of payment of the charges after demand within the stipulated time in the agreement. It was open to the plaintiff to have surcharges, as provided under clause 13 late payment, there was no scope for demanding minimum charges after exercise of statutory power. If the same was intended a similar provision as in Clause of the agreement considered in Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Others Vs. Green Rubber Industries and Others, could have been incorporated. Although purpose of minimum charges is to provide for overhead charge under the agreement to supply electicity, plaintiff not having intended to demand minimum charges when there is disconnection, which I come to the conclusion on considering the clauses in the agreement with general conditions and statutory powers, I am inclined to hold that plaintiff is not entitled to demand such charges. This is permissible as reflected in Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Others Vs. Green Rubber Industries and Others, . 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant has been fair to bring lo my notice with a Division Bench decision in (M/s. Orissa Tiles Limited, Bareng v. The Orissa State Electricity Board First Appeal No. 139.74, D/20.2.1985, that a provision in clause 13 for minimum charges towards contract demand woi'1: not envisage demand of such charges during the period of disconnection. However, Learned Counsel submitted that operation of this judgment has been stayed by the Supreme Court. I need not consider the effect of such order of stay since independently I have come to the same conclusion. 14. In result, appeal is allowed and the suit is dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed