WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and 2

' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.--The respondent is an industrial consumer of electricity and on his request that the meter overs hooted the supply of energy was on 29-12-1984, discontinued temporarily. However, on his demand for restoration of energy, the supply was restored on 15-4- 1985 after replacement of meter. During the period of disconnection, the bill for minimum charges was not issued to the respondent. In this behalf a bill amounting to Rs,5,712, as minimum charges, for the period from January to March, 1985 was included in the bill for the month of April, 1985 to which the respondent objected. He disputed the validity of the demand and filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Authority, which was decreed by the learned trial Court. The first appeal brought by the appellant failed and its revision was also dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 31-10-1989, which has been called in question in this appeal.

2. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the issue that the recovery of minimum charges was not only permissible but it has to be made necessarily. It was noticed that the High Court's approach rested on general consideration that if the energy was not supplied, how could the respondent be billed for any charges. Similar was the view taken by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. From the persual of the record we find that in para. 4 of the plaint it has clearly been stated that the supply of energy to the factory is governed by and the fixed charges are leviable even if it is closed and the meter ceases to operate. It may be observed that so far as the quantum of minium charges is concerned, the figure of Rs,5,712 is not in dispute. The respondent's case, however, is that as on account of defective meter the Authority was unable to supply energy and the respondent was not in fault, he could not be held liable for the minimum charges.

4. The stand taken by the respondent is untenable. The rationale behind the levy of minimum charges is that during the period of temporary disconnection the Authority has to keep ready with the "sanctioned loan" and continue to maintain the necessary set-up in this behalf, to make the energy available to the consumer when asked for. The consumer, therefore, has to be burdened with all incidental charges including service charges. The learned counsel is unable to lay hand on any provision in the Tariff or WAPDA Act that minimum charges cannot be recovered for the period the meter ceases to function or the supply of energy is disconnected temporarily. In fact his argument is negative by the contents of para. 4 of the plaint. The High Court and the lower Courts failed to examine the case in correct perspective and the views expressed by them are incorrect.

' This appeal is, therefore, accepted, the order of the High Court and the judgments of the lower Courts are set aside. Consequently, the suit is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.