JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. This is an application challenging an action on the part of the West Bengal State Electricity Board asking for payment in respect of Annual Minimum Guaranteed Revenue (hereinafter referred to as the AMGR) for the period 1996-97 and refused to restore supply to the petitioners on such ground. 2. The facts of the case briefly are as follows :- The petitioner company for setting up its unit at Malda applied for supply of electricity for 125 KVA at its unit at Malda. The respondent Board allowed the petitioner company to have the same. Accordingly the petitioner company and the Board entered into an agreement and supply was effected at the said unit of the petitioner company. 3. The petitioner could not instal all machineries at the said factory due to non release of necessary finance by the Bank and the petitioner company consumed electricity supply of 25 KVA to 35 KVA per day. The petitioner has also admitted in the petition, the said consumption of electricity by the petitioner was contrary to the demand of 125 KVA as mentioned in the agreement between the parties. In this circumstances the petitioners requested the Board to reduce the contract demand and to allow the petitioners to have a low tension supply. The Board did not take any step on the contrary continued to levy AMGR on the basis of the said Contract Demand. The supply at the petitioners factory was disconnected on August 19, 1996 by the Board for non-payment of the Bill for the period 1993-96. However the petitioner company was allowed to liquidate the dues by monthly instalments and supply was restored by the Board on July 1, 1996. 4. At the request of the petitioners the supply was disconnected on and from July 28, 1999 at the said factory by the Board. 5. The respondent authorities informed the petitioner by a letter dated October 16, 1998 for, subject to the conditions contained in the letter, request of the petitioner for conversion of high tension line to low tension power at its factory would be considered. Thereafter, the petitioner executed an agreement on November 5, 1998 with the respondent No.1 and the contract demand was reduced from 125 KVA to 50 KVA. Thereafter, the petitioner executed an agreement on November 5, 1998 with the respondent No.1 and the contract demand was reduced from 125 KVA to 50 KVA. It was further informed by the respondent Board that the reconnection of power in the said factory premises would only be restored upon liquidation of shortfall of AMGR for 1996-97 and 1997-98 being a sum of Rs. 2, 94,157/- apart from the monthly energy bills for the months of June, July and August, 1999 and the installments of AMGR for the period of 1993-1996. 6. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent Board is not entitled to charge AMGR for the period 1996-97 amounting to Rs. 2,59,469/- inasmuch supply at the factory of the petitioner company had been disconnected during the period August 19, 1996 to June 30, 1997. The petitioner company was not liable to pay the same as no supply had been made by the Board during the said period. 7. The further contention of the petitioner that the petitioner agreed to give effect to the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the State Electricity Board as contained in the letter dated June 11, 1997 and were willing to pay the outstanding dues of AMGR for the period 1993-1996 and further agreed to pay the monthly bills on account of current consumption of energy. 8. According to the petitioner, despite the various requests made by the petitioners the respondents refused to restore electricity supply to the factory of the petitioner company and further they demanded immediate payment of charges purportedly on account of AMGR bill for a period of 1996-1997 amounting to Rs. 2, 56, 469/- when the factory of the petitioner was closed and supply had been discontinued. 9. According to the petitioner, such claim of the petitioner is arbitrary, mala fide and illegal in issuing the impugned bill on September 8, 1999 on account of such shortfall of AMGR. Further the respondents, have acted without proper application of mind. The amount claimed is illegal. The actions on the part of the respondent are perverse and the respondent has no right to ask for the said amount. Hence this writ application has filed challenging the said letter dated September 8, 1999 and further prayed for a Mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with the letter dated June 11, 1997. 10. The actions on the part of the respondent are perverse and the respondent has no right to ask for the said amount. Hence this writ application has filed challenging the said letter dated September 8, 1999 and further prayed for a Mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with the letter dated June 11, 1997. 10. The respondents have filed their affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioners in the petition. According to the respondent, the petitioner did not pay the monthly energy bills for the period of June, 1999 to September, 1999. It further contended that the terms and conditions stated in the letter dated 11th June, 1997 are in connection with the restoration of the electric supply to the petitioner No.1 and the 'respondents are estopped from raising the said demand on account of AMGR for the period 1996 to 1997 are not tenable in law. In terms of the agreement the consumer is bound to pay AMGR. The respondent cannot act contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement. 11. According to the respondents, the principle of law that the AMGR is for maintenance of infrastructure facilities by the Board so that the consumer can avail of the required contractual load/power whenever the said consumer switched on. The question of waiving the right to claim the amount on account of AMGR for the year 1996-97 could not arise at all as the letter dated 11th June, 1997 was issued in connection with the restoration of power supply on the terms and conditions contained in the said letter and further that the petitioner company would have to liquidate the AMGR for the period of 1993 to 1996. The petitioners themselves asked for time to pay AMGR and further dues by a letter dated 8th January, 1998 and further by a letter dated 8th September, 1999 undertook to liquidate the shortfall of AMGR for 1996-97. 12. According to the Board a sum of Rs. 5, 25,756/- became due and payable by them. It is further contended that the letter dated 11th June, 1997 relates to AMGR for the year 1993-1996. There is no whisper in the said letter or any other letter issued by the Board to waive the claim by the authority towards the shortfall of the AMGR for the year 1996-97. 13. 5, 25,756/- became due and payable by them. It is further contended that the letter dated 11th June, 1997 relates to AMGR for the year 1993-1996. There is no whisper in the said letter or any other letter issued by the Board to waive the claim by the authority towards the shortfall of the AMGR for the year 1996-97. 13. The further contention of the Board that the Board cannot act contrary to the agreement entered into between the parties. It further appears that Board had duly informed the petitioners that there will be no reconnection unless the dues are liquidated. It further contended that the AMGR has no bearing or relation to the supply and cannot be equated with monthly energy bills. According to the respondents, in these circumstances, this application cannot be entertained. 14. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case it's a fact that the petitioner's company and the respondents are bound by the agreement entered into between the parties. The petitioner is bound to pay the AMGR in terms of letter dated June 11, 1997. It further appears that the petitioner company has wrongfully contended that the respondent Board has waived the amount of AMGR as claimed by the Board at any point of time. The Supreme Court has already held:- "The essential element of waiver is that there must be a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right or such conduct as warrants the inference of the relinquishment of such right. It means the forsaking the assertion of a right at the proper opportunity. Waiver is distinct from estoppel in that in waiver the essential element is actual intent to abandon or surrender right while in estoppel such intent is immaterial. The necessary condition is the detriment of the other party by the conduct of the one estopped. An estoppel may result though the party estopped did not intent to lose any existing right. Thus voluntary choice is the essence of waiver for which there must have existed an opportunity for a choice between the relinquishment and the conferment of the right in question." and in a judgment reported in AIR 1989 SC 1834 (Prouash Chandra Dalui and Anr. vs. Biswanath Banerjee and Anr.) 15. Thus voluntary choice is the essence of waiver for which there must have existed an opportunity for a choice between the relinquishment and the conferment of the right in question." and in a judgment reported in AIR 1989 SC 1834 (Prouash Chandra Dalui and Anr. vs. Biswanath Banerjee and Anr.) 15. In the instant case the said essential ingredients do not exist and therefore, it cannot be said to be that the Board has waived their right in respect of the said AMGR or now estopped from demanding the said amount as alleged by the petitioner. In my opinion, it's a fact that it is well settled that the AMGR is payable by the consumer in terms of the agreement as the consumption is being charged so that the consumer can avil of the required contractual load whenever it is necessary for the said consumer. Accordingly, in my opinion the amount claimed by the Board by its letter dated 8th September, 1998 is also payable by the petitioner company and furthermore it appears that the petitioner has also failed to act in terms of the letter dated June 11, 1997 by not paying the amount in accordance with the said letter and also it appears from the letter dated 16th October, 1998 that the Board has specifically mentioned in the said letter that the petitioner had to take steps in accordance with the said letter dated 16th October, 1998 (being annexure-E), and the Board subject to the fulfiling of the conditions laid down in the said letter would take necessary actions in terms of the said letter for conversion of category from decentralised bulk to low and minimum voltage. On the contrary, the petitioner has specifically stated by their letter dated 8th September, 1998 (being annexure-G to the petition) that:- "..... As soon as the previous outstanding dues of AMGR for 199396 will be completed payments, we shall mutually settle the matter of payment of the 2nd claim of AMGR for 1997-98." 16. Therefore, it clearly shows that the petitioners themselves specifically stated that they will deal with the matter later on. It further appears that the AMGR for the year 1996-97 amount to Rs. 2,59,459/-, the petitioner company by the said letter dated 8th September, 1998 has specifically stated:- "...... Therefore, it clearly shows that the petitioners themselves specifically stated that they will deal with the matter later on. It further appears that the AMGR for the year 1996-97 amount to Rs. 2,59,459/-, the petitioner company by the said letter dated 8th September, 1998 has specifically stated:- "...... We shall again pray to the higher authorities for the settlement of this extra-loaded outstanding dues, for which we pray for time from yourself." which would also show that at that point of time the petitioners knew that the payment in respect for the period of 1996-97 is also not waived by the Board, moreover they have claimed for the same and the intention of the petitioner to pray time from the Board to liquidate the same. Accordingly, at this stage, the separate stand sought to be taken by the petitioner company cannot be allowed by me and further there is no question on the part of the Board either to waive or to estop themselves from claiming the amounts mentioned in their letter. Accordingly I direct the petitioner to pay the amount as claimed by the Board in respect of the said AMGR and further direct the Board after payment of such dues by the petitioner, the Board shall take all necessary steps in the matter for restoration of the supply in accordance with law. 17. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the application is thus disposed of. Application disposed of.