Judgment B.K. PATEL, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner-consumer has made prayer to quash demand notice dated 21.10.2011 as revised by notice dated 25.10.2011 at Annexure-8 series for Minimum Charges issued by the opposite parties representing distribution company WESCO and to direct opposite parties to refund security deposit made by the petitioner under Agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2 with interest with effect from 1.8.2011. 2. Facts culminating in filing of the writ petition are as follows: 2.1 Petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in manufacturing of sponge iron and generation of electricity by a captive power plant (CPP). 2.2 The petitioner and WESCO entered into standard Agreement dated 23.4.2005 and Amended Agreement dated 25.6.2008 at Annexure-1 series respectively for supply of 3000 KVA power to the petitioner initially and reduction of contract demand from 3000 KVA to 1500 KVA w.e.f. 1.1.2008 subsequently. Paragraph 3 of the Amended Agreement dated 25.6.2008 provided, inter alia, “The previous agreement executed with M/s Aryan Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd. on 23rd April, 2005 will be superseded by the present Agreement w.e.f 01.01.2008.” 2.3 The petitioner and WESCO entered into fresh Agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2 for enhancement of contract demand to 3000 KVA for a period of one year and thereafter to 5000 KVA. In accordance with the stipulation at Clause-5 of the Agreement at Annexure-2, the petitioner paid Rs.81,68,352/- towards security deposit and a new consumer account bearing BRL/6-0041 was allotted to the petitioner. Clause-9 of the Agreement at Annexure-2 provided as follows: “All arrears, liabilities and security deposit under the agreement executed earlier with M/s Aryan Ispat and Power Private Limited, bearing consumer No.BRL/6-0041 in the same premises shall be treated as arrear, liabilities and security deposit under the present agreement. The previous power supply agreement executed with M/s Aryan Ispat and Power Private Limited on 25.06.2008 will be superceded by the present agreement from the date of availing power supply of 3000 KVA after observing all departmental formalities.” Duration of Agreement was stated to be commencing from the date of availing power supply and to continue to be in force until the expiry of five years from the date of supply, and thereafter to continue until the Agreement was determined by either party giving to the other, two calendar month’s, notice, in writing, of its intention to terminate the Agreement. 2.4 Petitioner commissioned its CPP in the year 2010 and submitted letters under Annexure-3 series for emergency supply only as per Regulation 80(15) of the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004, (for short, ‘OERC Code’). 2.5 WESCO by letter dated 4.3.2011 under Annexure-4 series accorded permission for emergency power supply only to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to execute a fresh agreement, and pointed out that regular power supply was to be disconnected immediately after supply of emergency power supply. As required by WESCO in their letter dated 21.07.2011 under Annexure-5 series petitioner deposited Rs.1,30,00,000/-towards security deposit under intimation to WESCO by letter dated 23.07.2011 at Annexure-5 series. 2.6 Agreement for emergency power supply dated 23.07.2011 at Annexure-6 was executed between the parties, clause-9 of which reads as follows:- “All arrears and liabilities under the agreement executed earlier with M/s Aryan Ispat and Power Private Limited bearing consumer No.BRL/6-0041 in the same premises shall be treated as arrear and liabilities under the present agreement. Similarly, all dues such as security deposit demand charges, over drawl charges, penalty refundable to M/s Aryan Ispat and Power Private Limited will be refunded with immediate effect. The previous power supply agreement executed with M/s Aryan Ispat and Power Private Limited on 05.09.2009 will be superceded by the present agreement with effect from 1st August, 2011 after observing all departmental formalities.” 2.7 Upon disconnection of power supply, petitioner submitted letters under Annexure-7 series for refund of Rs.81,68,352/- lying with the WESCO towards security deposit under earlier Agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2 which stood superseded. 2.8 WESCO, instead of refunding security deposit, issued notices under Annexure-8 series demanding Rs.3,00,53,333.00 towards revised Minimum Charges for the period from 01.08.2011 to 17.09.2014. 3. Petitioner’s case is that demand notice towards Minimum Charges has been raised by the WESCO under misconception of fact and law that the duration of the earlier Agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2 was for a period of five years from the date of commencement of supply under the said Agreement i.e. from 17.9.2009 to 17.9.2014 and that the petitioner is liable to pay Monthly Minimum Charges for the entire period of thirty-seven months and seventeen days even though the earlier Agreement dated 5.9.2009 for supply of power to the petitioner as a Large Industries Category consumer stood superseded upon availing of emergency power supply. It is averred that the petitioner, being classified as a Large Industries consumer under the earlier Agreement dated 5.9.2009, was liable for payment of Monthly Minimum Charges in the form of demand charges at the rate of Rs.200/- per KVA determined on the basis of maximum demand recorded in the demand meter or 80 per cent of the contract demand whichever was higher. However, after supersession of the earlier Agreement dated 5.9.2009 and re-classification of the petitioner under Regulation 80 (15) of the OERC Code as an Industry owning CPP availing Emergency Supply only as per present agreement dated 23.7.2011 at Annexure-6, the petitioner ceased to be a Large Industries consumer with effect from 1.8.2011 so as to be liable to pay Minimum Monthly Charges. On the face of stipulation at Clause-9 of the Agreement dated 23.7.2011 at Annexure-6 superseding earlier agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2 with effect from 1.8.2011, the earlier Agreement stood terminated and annulled. Regulation 84 of the OERC Code providing for Monthly Demand Charges stipulates liability to pay such charges during continuance of the Agreement. However, WESCO has raised the demand notice under Annexure-8 series for a period when earlier Agreement dated 5.9.2009 stood terminated. Upon disconnection of power supply which the petitioner was availing on the strength of earlier Agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2 with effect from 1.8.2011, the petitioner is not liable to pay also any demand charge as defined under Regulation 2 (1)(n) of the OERC Code, as the petitioner cannot be said to have kept any reserved capacity for electricity for consumption. It is further averred that demand under Annexure-8 series has been made as an afterthought to illegally withhold the petitioner’s security deposit amounting to Rs.81,68,352/- which has become refundable along with interest upon termination of Agreement dated 5.9.2009 in view of provisions under Regulation 22 of the OERC Code. 4. Opposite parties have filed counter affidavit refuting petitioner’s claim and justifying demand for Monthly Minimum Charges made under Annexure-8 series. 4. Opposite parties have filed counter affidavit refuting petitioner’s claim and justifying demand for Monthly Minimum Charges made under Annexure-8 series. Paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit containing the stand taken by the opposite parties reads as follows: “That in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the demand notice under Annexure-8 series, but in fact, out of the said Annexure-8 series, the demand in letter no.4580 dated 21.10.2011 has been superseded by the subsequent letter of demand No.4647 dated 25.10.2011 for an amount of Rs.3,00,53,333.00 during the period from 1.8.2011 to 17.9.2014 subject to adjustment to the existing arrear of Rs.29,15,161/- (after adjusted the payment of October,2011) as against the previous consumer No.BRL/6-0041. This amount has been demanded on the basis of the minimum charges as against the agreement dated 5.9.2009 vide Annexure-2, which is for a period of five years from the said date of execution of agreement on the enhanced contract demand from 1500 KVA to 5000 KVA as against the consumer No.BRL/6-0041 and the same could not have been terminated as per the purport of regulation 16 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code,2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the Supply Code”), even though the petitioner had its option to avail the emergency power supply under the category of Captive Power Plant(CPP) with new and present consumer No.BRL/6-0070, i.e. within the meaning of Regulation 80(15) as per the agreement dated 23.7.2011 vide Annexure-6 being effective from 1.8.2011 for a period of two years. As per Clause-9 of the agreement vide Annexure-6, all arrears and liabilities arising out of the previous agreement has to be also discharged by the petitioner notwithstanding the CPP agreement vide Annexure-6 was executed. It is relevant to submit that as per section 45, the opposite parties-WESCO, the distribution licensee, is empowered to recover charges so fixed in accordance with the method and principle as may be specified by the OERC. The petitioner being a large scale industries, within the meaning of Regulation-2(w) of the Supply Code framed by the OERC, its initial period of agreement for supply is five years as it was done as per the agreement vide Annexure-2 dated 5.9.2009 and under no circumstances, this can be terminated in the circumstances arising in this case as per Regulation-16 of the Supply Code. As per the said agreement vide Annexure-2, the petitioner was ensured the supply of power of the contracted load for a period of five years either as a large industries or Mini Steel Plant within the meaning of Regulation-80(10) or 80(12) respectively in the consumer No.BRL/6-0041. For such period, the WESCO, the Distribution Licensee, by the said agreement was bound to augment such quantum of power to be supplied and, accordingly, its annual revenue requirement has been determined by the OERC. Even though after short span of time of execution of the agreement dated 5.9.2009 vide Annexure-2, much before expiry of five years, the petitioner entered into the agreement dated 23.7.2011 being effective from 1.8.2011 vide Annexure-6, but as per clause-9, it has to compensate such loss towards minimum monthly charges as per Regulation-80 of the Supply Code which envisages that every consumer during continuance of the agreement under Regulation -15 shall be liable to pay minimum monthly charges even if no electricity is consumed for any reasons whatsoever or supply has been disconnected due to default of the consumer. In view of the aforesaid conjoint meaning and interpretation of the provisions in vogue, the impugned demand is wholly justified and until the liability towards such demand is discharged, it is not permissible to refund the security deposit as against the agreement vide Annexure-2 as per Regulation-19 of the Supply Code. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed as it is totally misconceived both in facts and law.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause-9 of the Agreement dated 23.7.2011 at Annexure-6 contains specific stipulation, mutually agreed upon by the parties, that previous Large Industries category power supply Agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2 would stand superseded by the present emergency power supply Agreement at Annexure-6 with effect from 1.8.2011. WESCO accorded permission to the petitioner for emergency power supply and thereafter entered into the present Agreement upon deposit of security amounting to Rs.1,30,00,000/-. Therefore, in terms of the present Agreement, obligations of the parties under the earlier Agreement at Annexure-2 stood annulled. Regulation 84 of the OERC Code provides for payment of Minimum Monthly Charges during continuance of Agreement. There is no contemplation under the Regulation for payment of Monthly Minimum Charges beyond the period of continuance of Agreement. Therefore, in terms of the present Agreement, obligations of the parties under the earlier Agreement at Annexure-2 stood annulled. Regulation 84 of the OERC Code provides for payment of Minimum Monthly Charges during continuance of Agreement. There is no contemplation under the Regulation for payment of Monthly Minimum Charges beyond the period of continuance of Agreement. Hence, demand raised by WESCO for payment of Minimum Monthly Charges under Annexure-8 series after 1.8.2011 is contrary to the provision under Regulation 84 of the OERC Code. It was further argued that WESCO has no scope to place reliance on the provision under Regulation 16 of the OERC Code providing for “Termination of Agreement” as earlier Agreement at Annexure-9 was not terminated under any of the circumstances provided therein. In the present case, by mutual Agreement the parties agreed upon for supersession of the earlier Agreement by the present Agreement. It was also contended that as per provision under Regulation 82 of the OERC Code a fresh Agreement is required to be executed in case of certain exigencies resulting in reclassification of category of a particular consumer and alteration of rate of tariff. In accordance with such provision, the present Agreement was executed afresh between the parties for changing the classification of the petitioner from Large Industries category to emergency power supply category tariff consequent upon application made by the petitioner and notice issued by the WESCO to that effect. Disconnection of power supply in terms of earlier Agreement and termination of earlier Agreement was not due to any unilateral action on the part of the petitioner. Electricity supply to the petitioner’s industry in terms of earlier Agreement was not disconnected due to any default on the part of the petitioner. In absence of any provision either under the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’) or the OERC Code for recovery of Minimum Monthly Charges during a period when an Agreement was no more in existence, the impugned demand is not sustainable. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, in reply, reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It was argued that the petitioner is obliged to pay Minimum Monthly Charges for a period of five years from the date of execution of earlier Agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2 in view of provision under Regulation 16 of the OERC Code. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, in reply, reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It was argued that the petitioner is obliged to pay Minimum Monthly Charges for a period of five years from the date of execution of earlier Agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2 in view of provision under Regulation 16 of the OERC Code. It was argued that demand notice under Annexure-8 series has been issued in accordance with the stipulation at Clause-9 of the present Agreement at Annexure-6 to the effect that all arrears and liabilities arising out of the previous Agreement were to be treated as arrears and liabilities under the present Agreement at Annexure-6. As per the previous Agreement at Annexure-2 WESCO was required to ensure supply of contracted load for a period of five years to the petitioner as a Large Industries category consumer. In order to discharge such assurance or obligation, WESCO was duty bound to augment such quantum of power to be supplied to the petitioner and accordingly, its annual revenue requirement was determined by the OERC. In such circumstances, notwithstanding supersession or termination of the earlier Agreement, the petitioner has to pay the Minimum Monthly Charges. 7. From the rival pleadings and submissions as well as admitted facts it is obvious that supersession of previous Agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2 by the present Agreement dated 23.7.2011 at Annexure-6 is not a case of termination of contract as provided under Regulation 16 of the OERC Code which reads as follows: “Termination of Agreement 16. 1) If power supply to any consumer remains disconnected for a period of two months for non-payment of charges or dues or non-compliance of any direction issued under this Code, and no effective steps are taken by the consumer for removing the cause of disconnection and for restoration of power supply, the agreement of the licensee with the consumer for power supply shall be deemed to have been terminated on expiry of the said period of two months, without notice, provided the initial period of agreement is over. 2) On termination of the agreement, the licensee shall be entitled to remove the service line and other installation for supply of power from the premises of the consumer. 2) On termination of the agreement, the licensee shall be entitled to remove the service line and other installation for supply of power from the premises of the consumer. After permanent disconnection, if the consumer wishes to revive the connection, then it would be treated as a fresh application for connection and would be entertained only after all outstanding dues have been cleared. 3) Consumer may terminate the agreement after giving at least two months notice to the licensee only after completion of initial period of agreement. Provided that the notice shall be accompanied with a copy of payment of last bill.” Clause-1 as well as Clause-3 of Regulation 16 make it clear that the provision for termination of agreement under Regulation-16 of the OERC Code is applicable only after initial period of agreement is over or after completion of initial period of agreement. Clause-1 refers to termination of agreement in case power supply to any consumer remains disconnected for non-payment of charges or dues or non-compliance of any direction issued under the OERC Code and failure on the part of the consumer to remove the cause of disconnection. In the present case, during continuance of period of Agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2, the petitioner was permitted to enter into the present agreement dated 23.7.2011 at Annexure-6 for emergency power supply only. Petitioner’s power supply under the previous agreement was not disconnected under any of the circumstances provided under Regulation 16 of the OERC Code. Therefore, WESCO has no scope to derive any assistance from the said provision. 8. Power supply was provided to the petitioner under previous Agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2 as a Large Industries category consumer. By entering into the fresh Agreement dated 23.7.2011 at Annexure-6 the petitioner was reclassified as an Industry owning CPP availing Emergency Power Supply only as provided under Clause-15 of Regulation 80 of OERC Code. Regulation 82 of the OERC Code providing for ‘Reclassification of Consumer’ reads as follows: “82. By entering into the fresh Agreement dated 23.7.2011 at Annexure-6 the petitioner was reclassified as an Industry owning CPP availing Emergency Power Supply only as provided under Clause-15 of Regulation 80 of OERC Code. Regulation 82 of the OERC Code providing for ‘Reclassification of Consumer’ reads as follows: “82. If it is found that a consumer has been classified in a particular category erroneously or the purpose of supply as mentioned in the agreement has changed or the consumption of power has exceeded the limit of that category or any order of reduction or enhancement of contract demand has been obtained, the engineer may reclassify him under appropriate category after issuing notice to him to execute a fresh agreement on the basis of the altered classification or modified contract demand. If the consumer does not take steps within the time indicated in the notice to execute the fresh agreement, the engineer may, after issuing a clear seven days show cause notice and after considering his explanation, if any, may disconnect the supply of power.” Thus, Regulation 82 itself provides for reclassification of a consumer when an order of reduction of contract demand has been obtained. In the present case, on petitioner’s application permission was accorded for availing Emergency Power Supply only. Accordingly, the present Agreement at Annexure-6 was executed for emergency power supply in accordance with terms and conditions provided therein. It has been specifically provided at Clause-9 of the present Agreement that previous Agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2 would be superseded by the Agreement at Annexure-6 with effect from 1.8.2011. In such circumstances, previous Agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2 ceased to continue with effect from 1.8.2011. 9. Regulation 84 of the OERC Code explicitly provides that Minimum Monthly Charges shall be payable by a consumer only during continuance of agreement. Regulation 84 reads as follows: “84. Every consumer, during continuance of agreement under Regulation 15, shall be liable to pay minimum monthly charges even if no electricity is consumer for any reason whatsoever or supply has been disconnected due to default of the consumer.” By entering into the present Agreement WESCO allowed supersession of previous Agreement. Thereby the period of previous Agreement came to an end. Hence, WESCO has no scope to invoke provision under Regulation 84 of the OERC Code to demand Monthly Minimum Charges from the petitioner. 10. Thereby the period of previous Agreement came to an end. Hence, WESCO has no scope to invoke provision under Regulation 84 of the OERC Code to demand Monthly Minimum Charges from the petitioner. 10. Clause-9 of the present Agreement dated 23.7.2011 at Annexure-6 extracted above provides, inter alia, that not only the petitioner was required to pay all arrears and discharge all liabilities under the previous Agreement but also WESCO was required to refund with immediate effect all dues, such as security deposit, demand charges, over drawal charges and penalty refundable to the petitioner. Regulation 22 of the OERC Code contains specific provision for refund of security deposit after termination of the Agreement. Regulation 22 reads as follows: “22. The security deposit shall be returned to the consumer only after the termination of the agreement and after adjustment of outstanding dues, if any, within a period of one month from the date of termination. In case of non-refund of such security deposit during the aforesaid period, it shall carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the effective date of termination of the agreement (without prejudice to other rights and remedies of the consumer) payable to the consumer. Before termination of the agreement, the licensee is entitled to adjust the whole or part of the security deposit towards arrears payable by the consumer.” Upon supersession of previous Agreement WESCO is obliged to refund security deposit under the previous Agreement in accordance with the stipulation under Clause-9 of the present Agreement as well as provision under Regulation 22 of the OERC Code. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Demand notice at Annexure-8 series is quashed and the opposite parties are directed to refund the security amount deposited by the petitioner under the previous Agreement dated 5.9.2009 at Annexure-2 in accordance with the provision under Regulation 22 of the OERC Code.