JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)—The respondent is an industrial Unit. It receives power supply from the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders comprised in Annexures P-16, whereby the Forum for Redressal of Grievances of HPSEB Consumers pronounced that a final claim of Rs. 15,06,396/- raised by the HPSEB, is not based on actual figures and facts. The petitioners pray for the annexure aforesaid being quashed and set aside. The petitioners also pray for a further direction being rendered upon the respondent, to pay the demand raised by the petitioners with respect to Rs. 2349352/- including 1% surcharge together with interest @ 18% per annum, from the date it was due and payable, till its actual realization. 2. The respondent resists and repudiates the contentions of the petitioners. The controversy inter-se the parties at contest before this Court, is qua, the tenability of raising of tariff by the petitioner with respect to electrical energy consumed by the respondent-unit. Admittedly, the respondent, is, a consumer of electricity under the petitioners. In an agreement concluded inter-se the parties, agreement whereof exists on the paper book, the respondent-unit, had, agreed/accepted, to pay to the petitioner with respect to electricity consumed by it, the apposite commensurate tariff, as would come to be levied upon it, in accordance with the prevalent rules in force. The respondent, too, does not controvert or contest the fact, that, it was under an enjoined legal obligation, to defray to the petitioner/suppliers of electricity to its unit at Gumma, tariff at the prevalent rates. In face thereof, now it is imperative to determine, as, to whether the petitioners, had levied tariff with respect to electrical energy consumed by the respondent-unit, in, accordance with the prevalent rates. The tariff, as, demanded by the petitioners from the respondent-unit, with respect to consumption of electricity by it, is, on the strength, of, Annexure-P-1. A perusal of the aforesaid annexure, divulges that the annexure aforesaid ordains levy, of, electricity tariff by the petitioner upon the respondent-Unit, on a two way basis, in as much, as, the respondent-unit was obliged to pay both demand charges and energy charges. Demand charges stand conveyed, in, Annexure-P-1, to, imply that they would be levied, on, the actual maximum recorded demand, in, a month in any 30 minutes interval, in, a month or 80% of the contract demand whichever, is, higher. 3. Demand charges stand conveyed, in, Annexure-P-1, to, imply that they would be levied, on, the actual maximum recorded demand, in, a month in any 30 minutes interval, in, a month or 80% of the contract demand whichever, is, higher. 3. The respondent-Unit does not contest the fact that it was legally obliged to in consonance with the terms of the concluded contract interse the parties, to defray electricity tariff to the petitioners at the prevalent rates, however, it, contests the fact of it being under a duty under law, to, defray to the petitioners, the relevant demand charges at the rate contemplated in, Annexure-P-1. For clinching the contest qua the facet aforesaid, it is imperative to determine whether the respondent-unit, had agreed or contracted to defray to the petitioners, electricity tariff, as ordained in Annexure-P-1. Moreover, prevalence of Annexure-P-1, at the apposite stage, has, to be determined, on, the strength of the fact of its being in vogue or in-force during the disputed period, in as much, as, from 1-11-2001 till 31-08-2003. A perusal of the contract entered inter-se the parties, comprised, at, page 23 of the writ book, discloses that the assured contracted demand made by the respondent-Unit for supply of electricity to it by the petitioner, being comprised in 754.08 KVA besides the said agreement remaining, in force, as well, as, in operation during the disputed period. 4. On a consideration of the above material on record this Court is of the firm and confident view that given the evident acceptance by the respondent-Unit, to defray to the petitioners, electricity tariff, at the prevalent rules, acceptance whereof is comprised, in, the operable contract qua the disputed period, whereby, the respondent-unit had sought assured contract demand of supply of electricity to the tune of 754.08 KVA. Hence, given the relevant acceptance by the respondent-unit under a concluded contract inter-se the parties besides it hence accepting the applicability of the relevant contractual tariff rates with respect to electrical energy consumed, at its industrial unit. In sequel when Annexure P-2 also portrays the mode(s) of raising or levying of tariff by the petitioners qua electrical energy consumed by the respondent-unit, hence the effect of the respondent agreeing to or abide by the prevalent rates of levying of electricity tariff, is of its also conveying its acquiescence to accept the rates of electricity tariff postulated, in Annexure P-2. The petitioners by applying the two way mode, of levying of electricity tariff, in as much, as, by raising demand, both, qua the energy charges, as well, as qua demand charges, its, comprising the prevalent rates/modes of levy of tariff, modes of levy of tariff stand accepted by the respondent under a concluded contract executed inter-se the parties at contest hence did not transgress the domains thereof. Therefore, the respondent-unit is estopped from contending that the levy of electricity tariff by the petitioner on anvil of the prevalent rates comprised in Annexure P-1 is either arbitrary or capricious, rather the raising of electricity tariff by the petitioners with respect to the electricity consumed, by the respondent-unit is to be considered to be anvilled upon firm and formidable material existing on record. Obviously the relevant tariff, as raised by the petitioners, is to be defrayed by the respondent-unit. Consequently, I find merit in the petition, which is accordingly allowed. No costs.