T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE suit is for recovery of money due to the Electricity Board being minimum electrical energy charges during the period of agreement i. e. , between 20-10-85 to 20-10-1990 was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the defendant did not avail electricity. The suit is barred by limitation and there is no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to pay such charges. ( 2 ) THIS decree is assailed before this Court by the Electricity Board in the above C. R. P. There is no dispute that the defendant was given electrical energy to run 1. 00 H. P. water pump for hotel for commercial purpose, on executing an agreement dated 20-10-1985. The defendant agreed to pay the electrical charges calculated as per tariff LT. 3 (a ). He is also bound to pay electrical energy charges. During the period of agreement, irrespective of the fact whether the defendant avails electrical energy or not. In the written statement, the defendant states that he has agreed to pay minimum electrical charges during the period of agreement irrespective of the fact that whether he avails the electrical energy or not are all incorrect. When the plaintiff board itself got disconnected the electrical energy supply provided to the defendant's premises, the question of payment of minimum electrical energy charges does not arise. ( 3 ) IT is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that under the Electricity Regulations LT. 3 tariff schedule is applicable to the following institutions :". . . . . Applicable to power supply to Nursing Homes, Shops, Stores, Hotels, Bars, Banks, Kalyana Mantaps, Clubs, Cinemas, Restaurants, Boarding and Lodging Houses, Petrol Bunks, Service Stations, Swimming Pools, Offices, All India Radio, Microwave and T. V. Stations, Stud Farms, Computer Centres, Photographic Studios, Colour Laboratories, State and Private Guest Houses, Inspection Bungalows Travellers Bungalows, Messes, Clinics, Railway Stations, Bus Stations of K. S. R. T. C. for Commercial and Non-Industrial purposes. "he also relies on the dictum of the Supreme Court that the minimum electrical charge is payable till the contract is terminated. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no agreement to pay, the suit is barred by limitation and they have violated the Rules and Regulations of the Electric Supply Act. Consequently, the dismissal is proper. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no agreement to pay, the suit is barred by limitation and they have violated the Rules and Regulations of the Electric Supply Act. Consequently, the dismissal is proper. ( 4 ) HEARD the respective counsel. The fact that connection has been given for consumption of 1 H. P. water pump for commercial purposes. An agreement was entered into on 20-10-85 is not in dispute. The service was disconnected on 6-3-1987. Subsequent, to which the defendant did not apply for reconnection. This fact is also not in dispute. Due to the disconnection of the electrical energy, he is not bound to pay the charges. ( 5 ) IT is not open to say so. In the light of the dictum of the Supreme Court in Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries, reported in AIR 1990 SC 699 to the following extent :". . . . . . Considered by the test of reasonableness the agreement cannot be said to be unreasonable inasmuch as the supply of electricity to a consumer involved incurring of over head 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. 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, even though the immediate object of enquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause. This agreement with the stipulation of minimum guaranteed charges cannot be held to be ultra vires on the ground that it is incompatible with the statutory duty. Difference between this contractual element and the statutory duty have to be observed. A supply agreement to a consumer makes his relation with the Board mainly contractual, where the basis of supply is held to be statutory rather than contractual. In cases where such agreements are made the terms are supposed to have been negotiated between the consumer and the Board, and unless specifically assigned, the agreement normally would have affected the consumer with whom it is made. In cases where such agreements are made the terms are supposed to have been negotiated between the consumer and the Board, and unless specifically assigned, the agreement normally would have affected the consumer with whom it is made. "again in the same book i. e. , AIR 1990 SC 706 in the case of G. M.-Cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board v. Rajeshwar Singh reads thus :". . . . . The firm would be liable to pay the minimum guaranteed charges under the agreement to supply of electricity unless it could be shown that the contract itself was terminated. The mere disconnection of electricity supply would not amount to termination. If there was no application for restoration within 7 dys of disconnection that would be deemed to be a notice for termination and the contract would be terminated either at the end of this period of notice or the tenure of the agreement whichever was longer. "from the above, it is clear that the electricity was disconnected till the contract was in force and remained undetermined. The liability of the consumer to pay the minimum charges, can always be enforced under the electricity supply Regulations and he is bound to pay. In the light of the above dictum, the C. R. P. is allowed and the decree of the trial Court is set aside and the decree be drawn. --- *** --- .