Judgment : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the energy bill raised by the Respondents for the month of March, 2002 to May, 2002 having raised on the basis of Minimum Guarantee Charges. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner is a High Tension Insulation Service (H. T. I. S.) Consumer having 196 K. V. A. contract demand. According to the petitioner, its meter was burnt in February, 2002. The meter was working up to January, 2002 perfectly and the average unit consumption of petitioner from May, 2001 to January , 2002 was about 530 units per month. It is alleged that raising of energy bill on the basis of average Minimum Guarantee charges for the period, the meter remained defective, is illegal. The petitioner earlier brought to the notice of the respondents that the meter WAS burnt, but it was not replaced immediately. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, in case of non-functioning of the meter, the energy bill should have been raised on the basis of last three months average consumption. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, according to the counsel for the J. S. E. B. , in the event of meter being out of order, the consumption for the month is to be assessed on average consumption of previous three months from the date the meter being out of order or the average consumption for the corresponding three months of the previous years consumption or the Minimum Monthly Guarantee, whichever is the highest, as per Clause 18. 8 of the Tariff Notification, 1993. ( 5 ) MR. V. P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the J. S. E. B. submitted that the Minimum Monthly Guarantee charges of petitioner being higher than the average consumption of previous three months or the previous years consumption, in terms with the aforesaid Clause 16. 8 of the tariff Notification 1993, the energy bills, in question, have been raised on the basis of Minimum Monthly Guarantee. ( 6 ) ONE of the questions raised is whether the State Electricity Board in respect to H. T. I. S. consumer, can raise energy bills on the basis of Minimum Monthly Guarantee (M. M. G.) charges, as per clause 16. 8 of Tariff Notification 1993 or not in case of meter being out of order or defective. ( 6 ) ONE of the questions raised is whether the State Electricity Board in respect to H. T. I. S. consumer, can raise energy bills on the basis of Minimum Monthly Guarantee (M. M. G.) charges, as per clause 16. 8 of Tariff Notification 1993 or not in case of meter being out of order or defective. ( 7 ) FOR determination of the aforesaid issue, it is necessary to notice the different types of consumers of electricity, clause 16. 8 of Tariff Notification 1993; and decisions rendered by the Courts from time to time. In the case of M/s. Monally Bharat Company Ltd. v. J. S. E. B. , reported in 2002 (3) JLJR 354 , the Court noticed the consumers as categorized under 1993 Tariff, namely; (a) Domestic service consumers (D. S. for short) - furthercategorized as D. S. I. D. S. II. and D. S. III; (b) Commercial Service Consumers (C. S. for short) (c) Low Tension Consumers (L. T. I. S. for short); and (d) High Tension Consumers (H. T. I. S. for short ). Different tariffs while fixed for C. S. , D. S. , L. T. I. S. and H. T. I. S. consumer, for D. S. and C. S. consumers, neither any Minimum Guarantee charge nor fuel surcharge has been levied under Tariff Notification, 1993. Two types of Minimum Guarantee charges have been levied in respect to L. T. I. S. and H. T. I. S. consumers. For L. T. I. S. while Minimum Monthly Guarantee charges (M. M. G. for short) have been fixed, for H. T. I. S. consumers, Annual Minimum Guarantee charges (A. M. G.) have been fixed. ( 8 ) THE question whether the levy of the Minimum Guarantee charges and the demand charges on monthly basis is justified in law or not, fell for consideration before a Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Bihar 440 Volts Vidyut Upbhokta Sangh v. Bihar State Electricity Board, reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 103. It was issue No. (e) framed by the High Court. The Division Bench upheld the levy of Minimum Guarantee Charges but held that the levy of proportionate Minimum Guarantee Charges from H. T. I. S. consumer on monthly basis is illegal, the Board can realize such charges on annual basis only. ( 9 ) ). It was issue No. (e) framed by the High Court. The Division Bench upheld the levy of Minimum Guarantee Charges but held that the levy of proportionate Minimum Guarantee Charges from H. T. I. S. consumer on monthly basis is illegal, the Board can realize such charges on annual basis only. ( 9 ) ). The Supreme Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Bihar 440 Volts Vidyut Upbhokta Sangh, reported in 1997 (11) SCC 380 , though modified some part of judgment, but issue No. (e) which was not under challenge, stood affirmed. ( 10 ) THE said issue again fell for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. M/s. Raj Lakshmi Refractories in L. P. A. No. 72 of 1999 and analogous cases. In the said case, the Division Bench, vide judgment dated 30th August, 2002, taking into consideration the Supreme Courts decision in Bihar 440 Volts case (supra), held that the Board is entitled to levy Minimum Guarantee charges from the L. T. I. S. consumers on monthly basis, but in the case of H. T. I. S. consumers, the Board is entitled to levy Minimum Guarantee charges on annual basis. ( 11 ) THUS, it will be evident that the H. T. I. S. consumers and L. T. I. S. consumers are liable to pay two different types of Minimum Guarantee Charges, namely Annual Minimum Guarantee (A,. M. G.) and Monthly Minimum Guarantee (M. M. G.) respectively, one to be calculated annually and the other monthly. The corollary is that the H. T. I. S. consumers are not supposed to pay any amount as Monthly Minimum Guarantee (M. M. G. charges) and similarly, L. T. I. S. consumers are not liable to pay any amount as Annual Minimum Guarantee (A. M. G.) charges. ( 12 ) CLAUSE 16. 8 of Tariff Notification 1993 which relates to billing, when the meter is not working, reads as follows: 16. 8. "billing when meter has either gone defective or burnt or stopped. ( 12 ) CLAUSE 16. 8 of Tariff Notification 1993 which relates to billing, when the meter is not working, reads as follows: 16. 8. "billing when meter has either gone defective or burnt or stopped. In the event of meter being out of order i. e. burnt/stopped or having ceased to function for any reason during any month/months, the consumption for that month/months shall be assessed on average consumption of previous 3 months from the date of meter being out of order or the average consumption for the corresponding three months of the previous years consumption or the Minimum Monthly Guarantee whichever is the highest. Such consumption will be treated as actual consumption for all practical purposes until the meter is replaced/rectified, Operational Surcharge, power factor Surcharge and electricity duty shall be levied on consumption so calculated. " ( 13 ) UNDER clause 16. 8 there are three alternative provisions made for assessment of average consumption, namely, (i) average consumption of previous three months from the date the meter being out of order or (ii) the average consumption of the corresponding three months of the previous years consumption or (iii) the Minimum Monthly Guarantee (M. M. G.) whichever is the highest. ( 14 ) AS noticed above, neither a Domestic Consumer (D. S.) nor a Commercial Consumer (C. S.) pay Minimum Monthly Guarantee (M. M. G.) charges or Annual Minimum Guarantee (A. M. G.) charges. Therefore, the question of assessment of consumption on the basis of third alternative i. e. Minimum Monthly Guarantee (M. M. G.) charges does not arise. The third alternative, thus is not applicable to the Domestic Service Consumers (D. S.), nor the Commercial Service Consumers (C. S. ). ( 15 ) SIMILARLY, as High Tension Insulation Service (H. T. I. S.) Consumers liable to pay only Annual Minimum Guarantee (A. M. G. ). and not liable to pay Minimum Monthly Guarantee (M. M. G.) charges, the question of assessment of bill on the basis of Minimum Monthly Guarantee (M. M. G.) does not arise in the case of H. T. I. S. consumers. As the Low Tension Insulation Service (L. T. I. S.) consumers are only liable to pay minimum Monthly Guarantee (M. M. G.) charges, the third alternative provision of assessment under Clause 16. As the Low Tension Insulation Service (L. T. I. S.) consumers are only liable to pay minimum Monthly Guarantee (M. M. G.) charges, the third alternative provision of assessment under Clause 16. 8 is applicable only to L. T. I. S. consumers and not to any other consumer H. T. I. S. Consumer. One should not confuse the sentence minimum Monthly Guarantee (M. M. G.) Charge used as the third alternative with minimum Guarantee Charges. While minimum Monthly Guarantee (M. M. G.) is applicable to L. T. I. S. consumer, the sentence Minimum Guarantee Charges include both L. T. I. S. and H. T. I. S. consumers. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the petitioner being High Tension Insulation Service (H. T. I. S.) consumer, the Respondents cannot raise average bill for the month of March, 2002, to May 2002 on the basis of monthly Minimum guarantee (M. M. G. ). They should assess the charges on the basis of average consumption of previous three months from the date the meter being out of order or the average consumption for the corresponding three months of the previous years consumption, whichever is the highest. The energy bills for the month of March, 2002 to May, 2002 are, accordingly, set aside with direction to the respondents to raise energy bill, as per observations, as made above. ( 17 ) IN the meantime, the petitioner will deposit the amount for the month of March, 2002 to May 2002 on the basis of assessment of average consumption of previous three months from the date the meter being out of order within three weeks, if not yet deposited, subject to the fresh bills, as may be raised by the respondents in terms with the directions given above. On failure, the board may charge penal interest, as per law. ( 18 ) THE writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions to both the parties. Petition allowed. 2002 --- *** --- .