Existing consumer status under load-change agreement cannot restart minimum guarantee liability after disconnection

Existing consumers who execute a fresh agreement only for load reduction or alteration remain old registered consumers under the regulatory scheme, so the minimum guarantee period cannot be restarted from that later agreement. Regulation 17(ii) must be read with Regulation 17(vi): the former governs liability where supply is disconnected before the compulsory period, while the latter preserves the status of an existing consumer despite a fresh agreement for change of load or related alteration. On that construction, a post-disconnection demand for minimum guarantee charges treated the petitioner as a new consumer and was beyond the regulatory authority, so the demand and connected orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether minimum guarantee charges could be recovered for the period after disconnection by treating the petitioner as a new consumer on the basis of a fresh load-reduction agreement, or whether Regulation 17(ii) had to be read with Regulation 17(vi) so that the petitioner remained an old registered consumer and the demand was unsustainable.

Analysis: Regulation 17(ii) prescribes liability for minimum charges where supply is disconnected before the compulsory period, but Regulation 17(vi) provides that where an existing consumer reduces or increases load or changes process or shifts connection, a fresh agreement is to be executed while the consumer continues to be deemed an old registered consumer. The Court held that these provisions could not be read in isolation. On the facts, the petitioner had been an existing consumer since 1987, and later agreements were only for alteration of load. A fresh agreement for load reduction did not create a new period for minimum guarantee recovery. After disconnection, no supply or consumption continued, and the claim could not be sustained as if the petitioner were a newly registered consumer. The impugned demand was therefore inconsistent with the regulatory scheme and beyond authority.

Conclusion: The demand for minimum guarantee charges was held unsustainable as applied to the petitioner, and the impugned orders and citation were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, with consequential relief of refund or adjustment of admitted amounts and no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a regulatory scheme deems an existing consumer to remain an old registered consumer despite execution of a fresh agreement for change of load, the minimum guarantee period cannot be reset from the later agreement, and recovery inconsistent with that construction is liable to be quashed.

---