Interim stay does not erase delayed-payment liability; restitution supports recovery of surcharge and additional electricity charges once challenge fails.

Statutory terms and conditions of electricity supply were treated as enforceable measures to deter delayed payment and compensate the supplier for non-payment. An interim stay in earlier writ proceedings did not extinguish the consumer's underlying liability or bar recovery once the substantive challenge to the tariff failed. Applying restitution, the Court held that the parties should be restored, so far as possible, to the position they would have occupied without interim protection. The earlier tariff decisions relied on by the consumer were distinguished on their different contractual and procedural settings. The demand for additional charges and surcharge for delayed payment was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether additional charges and surcharge for delayed payment of electricity dues were recoverable from the consumer despite the interim stay granted during the earlier writ proceedings and the subsequent dismissal of those proceedings.

Analysis: The governing terms and conditions of supply were statutory in character and were intended to discourage delay in payment and compensate the Board for the financial consequences of non-payment. The earlier relief obtained by the consumer was only an interim stay, which did not wipe out the liability under the revised tariff or suspend the enforceability of the underlying demand once the challenge to the tariff failed. The principle of restitution required the parties to be placed, so far as practicable, in the position they would have occupied but for the interim protection. The Court distinguished the earlier electricity tariff decisions relied upon by the consumer because those cases involved materially different contractual and procedural settings, including enforceable stipulations for interest and, in one instance, a final adjudication reversed in appeal.

Conclusion: The demand for additional charges and surcharge was upheld and the consumer remained liable to pay them.

Final Conclusion: A party that succeeds only in obtaining interim protection cannot use that protection to avoid statutory or contractual consequences once the substantive challenge fails, and the successful authority is entitled to recover the delayed-payment charges that accrued during the interim period.

Ratio Decidendi: An interim stay does not extinguish the underlying liability; when the substantive challenge fails, the liability and the ancillary consequences of delayed payment revive and are enforceable in accordance with the governing tariff or supply conditions, subject to restitutionary principles.

---