As per case facts, the Orissa State Electricity Board (OSEB) had an agreement to supply power to IPI Steel Ltd. When the State Government imposed power supply restrictions due to ... shortages, OSEB applied Regulation 46, charging demand based on actual maximum demand availed during restricted hours, rather than the contractual minimum. IPI Steel challenged this in High Court, arguing the regulation was unreasonable since OSEB couldn't meet the full contracted supply. The High Court agreed, striking down the proviso and ordering revised billing. OSEB appealed. The question arose whether the proviso to Regulation 46, allowing collection of demand charges based on actual maximum demand during restricted supply, was unreasonable, arbitrary, or illegal, especially when the Board could not supply the full contracted energy. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the proviso was valid and not arbitrary or unreasonable. It explained that demand charges cover capital costs and the Board's readiness to supply, which remains even with restricted consumption. Orders under the Electricity Act prioritize equitable distribution, overriding original contract terms during shortages. The consumer had options for availing power within the restricted quota. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld OSEB's right to levy demand charges based on actual maximum demand during power cuts, setting aside the High Court's judgment.