1, This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Nagpur Electric Light and Power Company Ltd., respondent in this petition, directing it to restore immediately the supply of electrical energy to the public lamps in the City of Nagpur.

2. The facts which are relevant and are admitted by the parties are briefly these: The respondent Company holds a licence under which it used to generate electricity and supply it to the former Municipal Committee at Nagpur and to the public at large. In March 1951, the respondent Company shopped generating electricity because the Khaperkheda Power House which is managed by the State Electricity Board, started supplying electricity to the respondent Company in that year. Therefore, as from the year 1951 the respondent Company is only distributing electricity within the limits of the City of Nagpur.

3. The first agreement between the Nagpur Municipal Committee and the respondent concerning the supply of electricity by the Company to the Municipality is of the year 1915. It was followed by several other agreements., the fast of which expired on 31-12-1938. After the expiry of that agreement, it would appear that there was a disagreement between the parties as to the terms on which a fresh agreement should be entered into. The dispute was therefore, referred to Mr. W.R. Puranik. He gave his award in the year 1942. That award was retrospective and was in operation from 31-12-1938 to 31-12-1945.

Under that award, the Municipality was to pay Rs. 25/8/- per annum per pole to the respondent Company as charges for the supply of electrical energy and for maintenance of the public lamps. Inspite of the fact that this agreement expired on 31-12-1945, it was continued to be acted upon by the parties till 1-10-1950. From 1-10-1950 to 28-2-1931 Rs. 30/- per annum were paid, by agreement, in respect of each pole. This was apparently a provisional arrangement between the parties between whom negotiations for entering into a fresh agreement were going on at that time.

4. According to the petitioner an agreement was ultimately reached in April ]951 and a draft of the agreement was agreed to between the parties. According to it, the respondent communicated acceptance of the draft by its letter dated 29-5-1951, and subsequently also by a letter dated 11-6-1952.

5. Under a rule framed under Section 420 (2) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, the agreement had to be referred to the Electrical Adviser to the Government for his approval and it was accordingly referred to him and his approval was received on 30-11-1954. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent on 13-12-1954 requesting the latter to execute an agreement which had already been engrossed on a stamp paper. The petitioners contention is that the respondent changed its mind and intimated that there was change in the circumstances and that the matter should be discussed afresh. Various reminders were sent in this connection by the petitioner to the respondent but despite those reminders the respondent refused to execute the agreement.

6. The petitioner states that by the letter dated 4-7-1955, the respondent was informed by it that there was a huge difference between the consumption set out in the bills for public lamps submitted by the respondent and the consumption which was actually recorded in the meters. The petitioner therefore requested the respondent to make necessary corrections in its bills. The respondent however refused to do so upon the ground that meter readings were not to be taken into account and that the bills were prepared on a different basis. According to the petitioner, the respondent had installed meters for recording energy consumed by public lamps, that every month meter readings are taken jointly by the petitioner and the respondent and that it was on the basis of these readings that the respondent recovered from the petitioner Electricity Duty for payment t