Minimum guaranteed electricity charges depend on corresponding supply availability, and prospective operation of the legal declaration was upheld.

Minimum guaranteed electricity charges linked to 40% of contract load were treated as dependent on the Board making supply available to that extent; where supply itself was insufficient, the consumer's liability could not be enforced without first determining the actual supply position. The Court also accepted that the High Court's declaration of law could operate prospectively because retrospective application would disrupt a public utility's tariff structure and supply arrangements. The individual disputes were remitted for factual examination on actual supply, with consequential relief to follow from that finding.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the consumer was liable to pay minimum guaranteed charges calculated on 40% of the contract load when the electricity supplied by the Board fell short of that level; (ii) whether the declaration of law made by the High Court could be confined to prospective operation.

Issue (i): Whether the consumer was liable to pay minimum guaranteed charges calculated on 40% of the contract load when the electricity supplied by the Board fell short of that level.

Analysis: The contractual scheme and tariff notification were read together as fixing the minimum guarantee in terms of minimum monthly consumption equivalent to 40% load factor, not as a flat monetary levy divorced from supply. The obligation of the consumer to pay the minimum charge was held to carry an implied corresponding obligation on the Board to make available energy at least to that extent. The Court distinguished situations where supply was available but not fully consumed from cases where supply itself was insufficient to make the guaranteed consumption possible. The Court also held that the matter of actual supply during the relevant periods required factual examination by the High Court.

Conclusion: The Board could not insist on minimum guaranteed charges unless it had made available supply at least to the extent of 40% load factor, and the individual disputes were remitted for determination of the actual supply position.

Issue (ii): Whether the declaration of law made by the High Court could be confined to prospective operation.

Analysis: The Court held that, in the circumstances of the case, prospective application was justified because the Board was a public utility with an existing tariff structure and retrospective disturbance of the declared position would adversely affect financial viability and ongoing supply arrangements. The Court accepted that the declaration could operate only for the future.

Conclusion: The prospective limitation was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The legal interpretation favouring linkage between minimum guarantee liability and corresponding supply was accepted, the prospective limitation was sustained, and the matters were sent back to the High Court for factual determination on actual supply and consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff and agreement fix minimum consumption charges in terms of a percentage of contract demand, the obligation to pay such charges depends on the Board making available supply at least to the extent necessary to render that minimum consumption possible; a declared interpretation may also be confined prospectively where justice and public interest so require.

---