JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The short question that falls for consideration in this writ application is whether the respondent- Board is justified in raising bill for Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges against the petitioners unit which has not completed 12 months of its production in the new industry. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Board on 24.10.1992 for supply of electricity in its new industry with a contract demand of 85 KVA. In terms of the agreement supply of electricity commenced from 2.06.1992 and the petitioner started production from June 1992. Petitioners case is that there has been consistent power trippings and power failure by the Electricity Board and the petitioner was unable to consume electricity. The petitioner received a bill of AMG for the year 1992-93 for a sum of Rs. 33,593 units. 3. Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-unit came into production only from June, 1992 and it had not completed 12 months till March, 1993. Unless and until a period of one year is completed, the respondent Board cannot charge AMG for the first year of its operation. In this connection learned counsel has drawn my attention to the relevant clause of the agreement and also the tariff of 1991. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was never given any remission on account of frequent power interruption and power failure for which a representation under Clause 13 of the agreement was filed in 1993. 4. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Board, on the other hand, submitted that no bill has been raised on account of short fall in KVA charges. Learned counsel submitted that the bill for AMG has been issued for the period June, 1992 to March, 1993 proportionately as per the provisions of the tariff and the H.T. Agreement. According to the learned counsel, like the AMG the Maximum Demand charge is not calculated during the first year of supply on the maximum demand. 5. It is now well settled that Minimum Guarantee charges and Maximum Demand charges operate in two different areas. Minimum Demand charges relate to consumers obligation to pay under specific agreement with the Board. According to the learned counsel, like the AMG the Maximum Demand charge is not calculated during the first year of supply on the maximum demand. 5. It is now well settled that Minimum Guarantee charges and Maximum Demand charges operate in two different areas. Minimum Demand charges relate to consumers obligation to pay under specific agreement with the Board. It operates irrespective of actual quantum of consumption by consumer which may be lower than the maximum agreed extent the irrespective of required or agreed quantum of supply by the Board. The actual supply made by the Board in individual cases has to be worked out for determining the consumers liability. 6. The only question, as noticed above, involved in this writ application, is whether the Board is liable to give relaxation in raising bill of AMG for the first 12 months from the date the supply of energy or from the date of commencement of production by the Industry. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner I would like to refer Clause 15.1 of the tariff of 1991 which was then applicable in the case of the petitioner. The said clause read as under : "15.1 (a) In case of metering of maximum demand and energy consumption is made on the low voltage side of a distribution transformer of 11/0.4 KV ration, 3 per cent will be added both on the maximum demand and the consumption of energy. In case of transformers of high voltage the percentage as fixed by the Board shall be binding on the consumer. (b) For the first twelve months of service to a new point of supply to HT/EHT consumer, the maximum demand charges for the month will be based on the actual maximum demand for that month. In the case of transfer of existing connection resulting in a fresh agreement with the transferee(s) benefit of charges based on actual maximum demand during the first twelve months of service will be available to the transferee(s) for the first twelve months only from the date of first connection." 7. Similarly Clause 4 of the H.T. agreement of the petitioner reads as under : "4. (a) Subject to the minimum contract demand applicable for the category of supply in which the consumer falls as per. Similarly Clause 4 of the H.T. agreement of the petitioner reads as under : "4. (a) Subject to the minimum contract demand applicable for the category of supply in which the consumer falls as per. Boards tariff, the consumer shall pay to the Board for the energy to supplied and registered or taken to have been supplied as aforesaid at the appropriate rates applicable to the consumer according to the tariffs framed by the Board and in force from time to time, the presently enforced tariffs being given in the Schedule to this agreement for easy reference, such reference is subject to provisions of Clause 14 appearing hereinafter : Provided that notwithstanding anything said above but subject to the provisions of Clause 13 appearing hereinafter, the consumer shall have to pay minimum charges as specified in the above said tariffs framed by the Board and enforced from time to time irrespective of whether energy to that extent has been consumed or not (such minimum charges are referred as minimum guaranteed charges at other places in this agreement). (b) For the purpose of this agreement the maximum demand of the consumer for each month shall be largest total amount of Kilovolt amperes (KVA) delivered to the consumer at the point of supply during any consecutive 30 minutes in the month. (c) Maximum demand charges for supply In any month will be based on the maximum KVA demand for the month or 75 percent of the contract demand whichever is higher, subject to provision of Clause 13. For the first twelve months service the maximum demand charges for any month, will however, be based on the actual monthly maximum demand for that month. (d) That part of minimum charges referred to in provision to Sub-clause (a) above, if no billed every month, the assessment for that part of minimum charges referred to in provision to Sub-clause (a) above, if not billed every month, the assessment for the same will be generally made at the end of the year commencing from the 1st April to 31st March of the following year which is the financial year of the Board notwithstanding any agreement entered into in between this period, in which case the minimum guarantee will be proportionate for the period for which the consumer is connected. Any bill on account of the minimum guaranteed consumption for the year or part thereof will be submitted by the end of June in each year." 8. As stated above, the minimum charges and maximum charges operate in two different areas. This has been well discussed by the Supreme Court in the Case of Nipha Steels Ltd. and Anr. v. West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors., reported in 2003 (3) JLJR 38 : 2003 (3) JCR 80 (SC). Their lordships observed as follows : "It is to be noted that minimum charges and maximum charges operate in different areas. While consumption and the ability to supply can be reckoned for the purpose of fixing minimum charges, the same is really not of significance for the purpose of maximum demand. What may be applicable to the case of minimum charges do not per se become applicable to maximum demand. As was noted in Raymond Ltd. case ( 2001 (1) SCC 534 ) minimum guaranteed charges relate to consumers obligation to pay under specific agreement with the Board. It operates irrespective of actual quantum of consumption by consumer which may be lower than the minimum agreed extent and irrespective of the required or agreed quantum of supply by the Board which may fall below even the minimum level of the contract demand but when the minimum guaranteed charge is not any fixed amount and is in terms of electrical energy to be consumed, consumers obligation to pay the same would: depend upon the implied corresponding obligation of the Board to supply energy at least to the minimum extent. The actual supply made by the Board in individual cases has to be worked out for determining consumers liability. The demand would obviously be in terms of the agreement. In Raymond Ltd.s case (supra) it was observed that the contract for supply of electrical energy cannot be treated on a part with any other contracts of mutual rights and obligations. The terms and conditions of supply as envisaged in the contract and the statutory provisions and general conditions have been standardized for uniform application among consumers with variations merely necessitated by the different class or categories of consumers and there is no scope otherwise for expecting any individual or free bargaining right in this regard by each consumer with the Board." 9. From perusal of Annexure-1 which is the impugned bill it appears that it relates to only minimum guarantee charges for the year, 1992-93 for the shortfall in unit consumption and not the maximum demand charges, it has been categorically stated in the counter affidavit that the impugned bill has been issued demanding AMG charges for the period June, 1992 to March, 1993 proportionately as per the provisions of the tariff and the Agreement and no maximum demand charges has been calculated during the first year of supply of maximum demand. Clause 15 of 1991 tariff quoted hereinabove, simply provides that the maximum demand charges for the first 12 months of service to a new point of supply will be based on the actual maximum demand for that month. In this connection Clause 15.2 of the tariff is also worth to be quote which read as under : "15.2 The following Minimum Base Charge" shall be realizable from the HTS/EHT and RTS consumers as per the appropriate tariff : (a) In respect of Demand Charge--Subject to the minimum contract demand mentioned in this tariff for each category of service the consumer shall pay the monthly maximum demand charge as per the appropriate tariff based on the actual maximum demand of that month or 75 per cent of the contract demand whichever is higher, as the minimum per month. (b) In respect of energy charge--It shall be payable In the manner as indicated below :-- (i) For 11 KV/66 KV 3.3. KV. service (HTS- I)--Energy charge based of load factor of 25 per cent and power factor of 85 per cent 9n contract demand shall be payable at the rate of 110 paise per unit, (ii) For 33 KV service (HTS-ID-Energy charges based on load factor of 30 per cent and power factor of 85 per cent on contract demand, shall be payable at the rate of 109 paise per unit. (iii) For 132 KV Extra High Tension Service (E.H.T.S.)--Energy charge based on load factor of 50 per cent and power factor of 85 per cent on contract demand shall be payable at the rate of 107 paise per unit. (iv) For 132 KV/25 KV Railway Traction Service (RTS)--Energy charge based on load factor 25 per cent and power factor of 85 per cent on contract demand shall be payable at the rate of 122/130 paise per unit respectively." 10. (iv) For 132 KV/25 KV Railway Traction Service (RTS)--Energy charge based on load factor 25 per cent and power factor of 85 per cent on contract demand shall be payable at the rate of 122/130 paise per unit respectively." 10. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is cleat that the minimum guarantee charges shall be payable as per tariff and in terms of the agreement. It is only the maximum demand charges in which as per the tariff and agreement the consumer will get relaxation for the first 12 months of service to a new HT/EHT connection. The question, therefore, is answered accordingly. 11. For the aforesaid reason I do not find any illegality in the impugned bill raised by the Board demanding AMG charges. However, the demand shall be subject to the remedy available to the petitioner under the tariff and the agreement.