Judgment : 1. The defendant is the appellant herein. .2. The plaintiff’s case is that he is running an industry, known as Raj Industries. The service connection is No. 21. The defendant without following any procedure, disconnected the service connection. For restoration of the same, the plaintiff filed a suit in the vacation court in O.S. No. 44 of 1983 and the suit was transferred to the file of the District Munsif, Villupuram. For restoration of service connection, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 40 and reconnection was effected on 16. 1983. The plaintiff is not liable to pay the charges. After the disconnection of service, the factory was closed down for a month. Considering the plight of the workers, the reconnection charge was deposited, and reconnection was obtained. The disconnection was on 20.5.1983. The reconnection was on 16. 1983. Till reconnection was effected, the factory did not work, whileso, the defendant has called upon the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 1,050 towards the consumption charges for the said period and is threatening to disconnect the service. Hence the suit. .3. The defendant contended as follows: - .It is not true to say that the disconnection was effected without following the Rules. There is the use of energy by the plaintiff. The factory was running against peak hours restriction. Hence, the service connection was disconnected. As per the Rules, the Department has got power to disconnect on the very same day when the misuse is detected. As per the circular of the Board as well as the Government Order, such disconnection can be effected for a month. The claim made upon the plaintiff is lawful. Whether the plaintiff uses energy or not, he is liable to pay the minimum charges, therefore, the amount claimed has to be paid by the defendant as and by way of minimum charges. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 4. The District Munsif, Villupuram, decreed the suit with costs. On appeal, the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal by the Board. .5. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 4. The District Munsif, Villupuram, decreed the suit with costs. On appeal, the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal by the Board. .5. At the time, when the second appeal was admitted, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration: - .“Whether, in view of clause 31 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of supply, the courts below were right in their conclusion that the respondent is not liable to pay the minimum charges?” 6. The point:- There was disconnection of the service on 20.5.1983. It is not necessary to consider whether the said disconnection is valid in the eye of law, since it does not fall for consideration in the suit. Reconnection was effected on 16. 1983, is also admitted. The defendant issued a notice, claiming payment of Rs. 1,050 as payable by the plaintiff towards the service connection for the period from 20.5.1983 to 16. 1983. According to the plaintiff, he is not liable to pay the said amount since during that period, service was disconnected and there was no drawing of electricity and therefore, there is no liability, as such. On the other hand, the defendant would contend that in view of Clause 31 of the Terms and conditions of Supply, the liability for payment of minimum charges is there very much, and it cannot be abandoned by the plaintiff. .7. Clause 31 of the terms and conditions of supply, which governs the parties herein, reads as follows: - .“Minimum charges shall be payable by the consumer as specified in the tariffs for different categories of consumers. This obligation shall be absolute. The minimum charges will be payable by the consumer even if no electricity is consumed, for any reason whatsoever and also if the charges for electricity actually consumed are less then the minimum charges. The minimum charges will be payable even if electricity is not consumed because supply has been disconnected by the Board because of non payment of electricity charges, pilferage, or other malpractice or for any other valid reason.” 8. Therefore, Clause 31 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply definitely holds that the consumer is bound to pay the minimum charges. Whether the energy is consumer or not. Therefore, Clause 31 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply definitely holds that the consumer is bound to pay the minimum charges. Whether the energy is consumer or not. It further emphasises the fact that even if the energy is not consumed because of disconnection of supply by the Board, still the liability of the consumer cannot be avoided and is bound to pay the minimum charges. Therefore, a reading of clause 31 clearly imposes the obligation upon the consumer to pay the minimum charges. .9. Here, the service connection has been disconnected on 20.5.1983. According to the defendant, as the factory was running against the peak hour restriction, the service connection was disconnected. Therefore, the disconnection it for malpractice. It is also covered by the clause “any other valid reasons”. According to the Board, the disconnection was therefore made, as there was malpractice in operating the factory against the peak hour restriction. Even otherwise according to the Board, there was valid r eason for disconnection. If there is a valid reason for disconnection or the disconnection is made because of the reason stated in Clause 31, then it follows that still the consumer would be liable to pay the minimum charges. 10. The Supreme Court has held in the decision reported in Bihar S.E.B. v. Green Rubber Industries , 1990 (1) SCC 731 that the consumer’s liability under agreement for payment of, irrespective of consumption of any electricity till termination of the contract is reasonable and valid. Such a clause has to be presumed to be fair and reasonable and the consumer is thus liable to pay the amount. In an earlier decision reported in Amalgamate Electricity Co., v. Jalgon Municipality , AIR 1975 SC 2235 it was held that a licensee is entitled to recover minimum charges in pursuant of that clause. There is yet another decision of the Apex Court reported in Amalgamated Electricity Co., v. Jalagon Borough Municipality , 1975 (2) SCC 508 , where the Apex Court has held that such a clause for payment of minimum charges is an obligation and the same is valid in law. The Bombay High Court has held in the decision reported in Mukan Iron & Steel Works Ltd., v. M.S.E. Board , AIR 1982 Bom. The Bombay High Court has held in the decision reported in Mukan Iron & Steel Works Ltd., v. M.S.E. Board , AIR 1982 Bom. 580 , that even in case of any inability of Board to supply the contract demand due to power but, even then, the consumer is liable to pay the minimum demand charge. 11. Therefore, in view of the wording of clause 31 and the case law on the point and the reason stated for the disconnection it is clear that the liability of the consumer to pay the minimum charge is always there and it cannot be avoided by the consumer. Hence, it follows that the judgment and decree of the courts below cannot be sustained. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment and decrees of the courts below are hereby set aside. The suit will stand dismissed with costs.