JUDGMENT Altamas Kabir, J: The petitioner company was formerly known as M/s Multiplex Business Ltd. It appears that several companies, including M/s. Allied Aromatics Limited, were amalgamated with M/s Multiplex Business Ltd. The said M/s. Allied Aromatics Limited had a unit at Kalyani which manufactured industrial chemicals. After amalgamation in 1985, the said unit became a part of Multiplex Business Ltd. and came to be known as "Allied Aromatics". 2. It appears that prior to its amalgamation, Allied Aromatics Ltd. entered into an agreement with the West Bengal State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as "the Board", on 16th July, 1983, for supply of power to its Kalyani unit. Subsequent to its amalgamation with Multiplex Business Ltd., the said agreement was replaced by another agreement dated 5th October, 1993, executed between the petitioner Company and the Board, which, inter alia, provided for payment of Annual Minimum Charge. 3. According to the writ petitioner Company, the Kalyani unit ceased to function from 1st. October, 1992, and such fact was brought to the notice of the Board by a letter of even date, being Annexure 'B' to the writ petition. It is the petitioner's case that the said 'unit has since remained closed. 4. According to the petitioner, there were labour problems in the said Kalyani unit which ultimately resulted in a lock out being declared with effect from 25th January, 1993. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner company, was served with a bill, being No. AMGR 93-94 dated 1st September, 1993, for a sum of Rs. 25, 24,404/-in respect of Average Minimum Guaranteed Revenue for 1993-94. On account of the prevailing conditions in the Kalyani unit, the petitioner company wrote back to the Board pleading force majeure and denying its liability to pay the bill in terms of clause 16(3) of the agreement of 5th October, 1993. 5. Despite the said letter, the petitioner company received a notice from the Board dated 20th September, 1994, under s. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. threatening disconnection of supply at the Kalyani unit of the company unless the aforesaid bill was paid by 30th September, 1994. The petitioner company also received a letter from the Board rejecting the petitioner company's request regarding waiver of the Average Minimum Guaranteed Revenue, hereinafter referred to as "AMGR". 6. threatening disconnection of supply at the Kalyani unit of the company unless the aforesaid bill was paid by 30th September, 1994. The petitioner company also received a letter from the Board rejecting the petitioner company's request regarding waiver of the Average Minimum Guaranteed Revenue, hereinafter referred to as "AMGR". 6. The above was followed by another letter dated 24th October, 1994, by which the Board informed the petitioner company that if the outstanding bill towards AMGR was not paid by 31st October, 1994, the Board would be compelled to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 5 lakhs furnished by the company, for realisation of a portion of its outstanding dues. 7. Since according to the petitioner company, it was not liable to pay the AMGR on account of clause 16(3) of the agreement of 5th October, 1993, it moved a writ application, inter alia, for a direction upon the respondents to withdraw and cancel the impugned bill dated 1st September, 1994, and the impugned notice dated 24th October, 1994, and to forbear from invoking the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner company for Rs.5 lakhs. 8. It appears that a meeting was convened on 3rd February, 1993, by the Special Cell of Industries, Chief Minister's Secretariat, Government of West Bengal to discuss ways and means of reviving and re-opening industrial units which had closed down. One of the decisions taken at the said meeting, to which the Board was also a party, was that no liability on account of AMGR for the. period of closure of a unit, which would be re-opening after lifting of such closure, would be claimed by the Board or the C.E.S.C. Ltd. A copy of the said minutes has been made Annexure 'J' to the writ petition. 9. Having regard to the above, the petitioner Company approached the State Government" and in response the joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, Government of West Bengal, by his letter dated 19th July, 1995, requested the Board to waive the AMGR for the period of closure in the interest of revival of the petitioner Company. The petitioner also informed the Board of the decision taken at the meeting held on 3rd February, 1993, and the request made by the Government to the Board. 10. The petitioner also informed the Board of the decision taken at the meeting held on 3rd February, 1993, and the request made by the Government to the Board. 10. The said facts were incorporated in a Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioners on 26th July, 1995, and, thereafter, by an order dated, 8th August, 1995, a learned Judge of this. Court, directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, and upon payment thereof the Board was directed to restore supply to the petitioner's factory premises. The petitioners were also directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 5 lakhs towards the claim of minimum charges by 31 st January. 1996. Such payments and acceptance were directed to be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. 11. It appears that upon deposit by the petitioners of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, as directed, the Board restored supply to the petitioner's unit at. Kalyani in August, 1995. 12. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners were served with another bill for AMGR for 1994-95 amounting to Rs. 48, 78, 823/-, and a fresh notice under s. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 dated 9th January, 1996, was served on the petitioner Company directing it to pay the said bill within 19th January, 1996. 13. The said bill and notice have resulted in this fresh writ application. 14. Appearing in support of the writ petition, Mr. S.K.Kapoor, learned senior counsel, firstly urged that having regard to the decisions arrived at in the meeting of 3rd February. 1993, convened by the Special Cell of Industries, Chief Minister's Secretariat, to which the Board was also a party, the demand made by the Board for payment of AMGR during the period of closure of the Kalyani Unit of the petitioner Company was illegal and was liable to be quashed. 15. Mr. 1993, convened by the Special Cell of Industries, Chief Minister's Secretariat, to which the Board was also a party, the demand made by the Board for payment of AMGR during the period of closure of the Kalyani Unit of the petitioner Company was illegal and was liable to be quashed. 15. Mr. Kapoor also urged that the impugned bill dated 1st September, 1994, was contrary to clause 16(3) of the agreement of 5th October, 1993, which, inter alia, provides that if at any time the consumer was prevented from receiving supply on account of strike, riots, insurrections, command of a civil or military authority, fire, explosions, act of God or any other cause beyond his/its control, then at the request of the consumer the minimum charge payable by the consumer may be proportion to the ability of the consumer to take and the Board to supply such power, provided the consumer notifies the Board in writing within fifteen days of occurrence of any such event. 16. Mr. Kapoor urged that since the closure of the petitioners Kalyani unit was beyond the petitioners control, the AMGR demanded was liable to be waived on such score also. 17. Referring to the provisions of s. 78A of The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Mr. Kapoor submitted that the statute had made it quite clear that in the discharge of its functions, the Board is to be guided by such directions on questions of policy as may be given to it by the State Government. 18. Mr. Kapoor urged that in view of the provisions of s. 78A of the above Act, the respondent Board was bound to implement the decisions taken at the meeting of 3rd February, 1993. Mr. Kapoor urged that the demand of AMGR being contrary to such decisions, the same was not capable of being recovered by the Board. 19. Appearing for the Board, Mr. Sankar Mitra, learned advocate, firstly submitted that the decisions arrived at the meeting of 3rd February, 1993, were not binding on the Board and could not interfere with or control the Board's contractual and statutory obligations. 20. In support of his said submissions, Mr. 19. Appearing for the Board, Mr. Sankar Mitra, learned advocate, firstly submitted that the decisions arrived at the meeting of 3rd February, 1993, were not binding on the Board and could not interfere with or control the Board's contractual and statutory obligations. 20. In support of his said submissions, Mr. Mitra referred to and relied upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s. Poddar Projects Ltd. vs. the A.P.SE Board, reported in AIR 1982 AP at page 159, wherein it was, inter alia, held that directions given by the State Government under s. 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, on questions of policy, do not release the consumer from the obligation to pay Minimum Charges. 21. Mr Mitra then referred to s. 49B of the above Act which provides that where any sum is due from a consumer on account of supply of electricity or other charges, and where such defaulting consumer being an industrial or commercial concern becomes financially sick or is otherwise wound up or closed or put to sale or is amalgamated with another concern or any scheme is drawn up, for re-opening and revitalising or restructuring such concern, the sum due to the Board would stand recoverable and shall be recovered from the sale proceeds or from the former owner or manager or new owner or manager, as a public demand under The Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. 22. Mr. Mitra urged that the provisions of the statute would have an overriding effect over any direction of the State Government and it would not be open to the petitioners to claim that the decisions arrived at the meeting of 3rd February, 1993, would have to be implemented even if they were contrary to the provisions of the Statute. 23. Mr. Mitra then urged that even the resolutions taken at the said meeting would have no application to the petitioner's case, since the same referred to a closure, which was of a permanent nature and not a lock-out, which was temporary in nature. 24. Mr. 23. Mr. Mitra then urged that even the resolutions taken at the said meeting would have no application to the petitioner's case, since the same referred to a closure, which was of a permanent nature and not a lock-out, which was temporary in nature. 24. Mr. Mitra urged that the same expression had been used in the guidelines contained in the Office Order of 13th April, 1994, issued by the Board and referred to in the letter of recommendation written on behalf of the State Government to the Board on 19th July, 1995, recommending the waiver of AMGR in the interest of revival of the petitioner Company. 25. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. vs. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, reported in AI R 1991 SC at page 1456, which were a number of appeals preferred from the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Poddar Project Ltd. (supra), Mr. Mitra urged that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that directions given by the State Government under s. l8A of The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, did not release a consumer from his obligation to pay Minimum Charges. 26. Mr. Mitra also referred to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna vs. M/s. Green Rubber Industries, reported in AIR 1990, SC at page 699, wherein the same principle was reiterated and it was held that liability of a consumer to pay Minium Guaranteed Charges continues till determination of the contract, irrespective of whether electricity was consumed or not. 27. Mr. Mitra submitted that notwithstanding the decisions taken at the meeting of 3rd February, 1993, in view of the provisions of s. 49B of The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the aforesaid decisions of the Court, the petitioners were not released from their obligation to pay AMGR, and the writ petition was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 28. In reply to Mr. Mitra's contentions, it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Poddar Projects Ltd., (supra) relied upon by Mr. Mitra, was subsequently held to be per incurium in the appeals preferred therefrom and reported in AIR 1986 AP at page 317. Mitra's contentions, it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Poddar Projects Ltd., (supra) relied upon by Mr. Mitra, was subsequently held to be per incurium in the appeals preferred therefrom and reported in AIR 1986 AP at page 317. In appeal it was held that the directions given by the Government regarding concessional tariff being allowed to certain consumers only involved acceleration of industrialisation in the State and as a matter of policy, under s. 78A of the 1948 Act, was binding on the Board. 29. The main question which surfaces for decisions from the submissions of the respective parties and the materials on record is whether having regard to the decision taken at the meeting convened by the Special Cell of Industries, Chief Minister's Secretariat, Government of West Bengal; on 3rd February, 1993, not to claim AMGR or late Payment Surcharge or penal interest for the period of closure in respect of industrial units reopening after a period of closure, the Board is entitled to demand and recover AMGR from the petitioners for the period during which the petitioners Kalyani unit remained under lock-out. An ancillary question also raises its head as to whether even if the decisions taken at the said meeting are held to be binding on the Board, the same will apply in the petitioner's case, since no closure had been effected, but a lock-out had been declared. 30. Of the said two questions, it will probably be more expedient to deal with the latter question first. 31. The minutes of the meeting held on 3rd February, 1993, disclose that the State Government was, making an attempt to revive and revitalise industrial units in the State which had been closed, and towards that and a consensus had been reached to provide some specific' reliefs and concessions to such closed industrial units towards clearance of arrear dues to the Board and/or the C.E.S.C.Ltd. to facilitate their re-opening upon reconnection of electricity. The minutes also reveal that the guidelines so framed had been in force since then and had been followed both by the Board, as also the C.E.S.C.Ltd., to support revival of sick and closed industries in the State. 32. The minutes also reveal that the guidelines so framed had been in force since then and had been followed both by the Board, as also the C.E.S.C.Ltd., to support revival of sick and closed industries in the State. 32. At the meeting, in which the Board was also duly represented, it was recorded that it was generally felt that while reconnecting supply, the Board and the C.E.S.C.Ltd. would not claim any amount on account of AMGR or late Payment Surcharge Interest or penal interest, for the period of closure of the unit. 33, The same sentiments were incorporated in the guidelines prescribed by the Board for itself in office Order No. 5088 dated 13th April, 1994, a copy whereof was produced by Mr. Mitra. In the said guidelines, the decisions arrived at the meeting of 3rd February, 1993, regarding waiver of AMGR, late Payment Surcharge, Interest and penal interest, was incorporated in almost identical language. 34. In the backdrop in which the aforesaid decisions were taken and the object intended to be achieved, the narrow and technical interpretation being sought to be given by Mr. Mitra to the expression "closure", does not appear to be tenable. In my view, the said expression has been loosely used in both the Minutes of the meeting of 3rd February 1993, and the guidelines of the Board, to include all industrial units, which were not functioning and had remained closed for whatever reason and an attempt was being made to re-open and revive the same. In my view, any attempt to give a rigid and/or narrow interpretation to the expression "closure" as used, would defeat that very object of the entire exercise undertaken by the State Government, jointly with the Board and the C.E.S.C.Ltd., to re-open and revive closed industrial units in West Bengal. 35. In my view, the decisions arrived at in the meeting of 3rd February, 1993, must be liberally interpreted to include an industrial unit which had remained closed on account of "lock-out". 36. This brings us to the main question regarding the liability of a closed industrial unit to pay AMGR during the period of closure, having regard to the decisions arrived at the meeting of 3rd February, 1993, and the Board's own guidelines in that regard. 37. The decisions cited by Mr. 36. This brings us to the main question regarding the liability of a closed industrial unit to pay AMGR during the period of closure, having regard to the decisions arrived at the meeting of 3rd February, 1993, and the Board's own guidelines in that regard. 37. The decisions cited by Mr. Mitra are in support of the proposition that concessional tariff, as prescribed by the Government would not release a consumer from his obligations to pay AMGR. There can be no quarrel with such a preposition since the concession given was in respect of tariff alone and not AMGR. In fact, the Supreme Court has observed that the AMGR payable would have to be computed and charged at the concessional rate of tariff. The said decisions cannot be .said to be in aid of the proposition that directions given by the State Government under s. 78A of The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, to the Board not to claim AMGR, was not binding on the Board. In fact, the said decisions proceed on the basis that the directions given by Government with regard to concessional tariff was binding, but did not release the consumer from his obligations to pay AMGR under the contract and that such obligation continued till the contract comes to an end. 38. In the present case, as would appear from the Minutes of the meeting of 3rd February, 1993, the decision taken to waive AMGR during the period of closure was implemented both by the Board and the C.E.S.C. Ltd. The Board cannot now resile from its said position as far as the petitioners are concerned. Furthermore, the Board has itself set the same conditions for itself in the guidelines contained in the office Order of 13th April, 1994, and cannot now say that the same are not binding on them. Such a course of action, if allowed, would be against public policy. The provisions of s. 49B of the 1948 Act would also have no application in view of the decisions taken to waive AMGR as a matter of policy. 39. The aforesaid findings virtually disposes of the writ application, which is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned AMGR Bill for 1994-95 dated 22nd December, 1995, and the impugned notice under s. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, being Annexure "N" and "0" to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. 40. 39. The aforesaid findings virtually disposes of the writ application, which is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned AMGR Bill for 1994-95 dated 22nd December, 1995, and the impugned notice under s. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, being Annexure "N" and "0" to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. 40. There will be no order as to costs. 41. If a certified copy of this judgment is applied for, the same is to be supplied to the applicants within 72 hours from the date of such application. Application allowed.