Clause 17(b) of the agreement between the petitioner and the Board did not apply to the present case because the petitioner had declared a lock-out of its factory, not a strike, and that the failure to use electricity was due to the lock-out.

1. - M/s. Hem Raj Udyog, the petitioner in this writ petition, carries on business of manufacture and sale of Vanaspati products. The petitioner has taken connection for suppl. of high tension electricity from the Rajasthan state Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') and for that purpose it has entered into an agreement with the Board. In Clause 17(b) of the said agreement a provision has been made for reduction of the minimum charges payable by the consumer in cases where in the opinion of the Chief Engineer of the Board,the consumer at any time is prevented from receiving or using the electrical energy either wholly or in part due to any strike, riots, insurrections, command of a civil or a military authority, fire explosions, act of God or any other cause beyond his/their/its control. The said clause requires the consumer to notify the Board in writing within seven days of the occurrence of any event referred to above, with necessary details to prove that the occurrence has prevented the consumer from receiving or using the full contractual demand. The consumer is further required to keep the Board informed once in every week of further development regarding the event and it lays down that no remission in the agreed minimum charge would be considered if no such information has been received by the Board. It is also prescribed in the said clause that the decision of the Chief Engineer of the Board in this behalf shall be final and binding on the consumers. The case of the petitioner as set out in the writ petition, is hat on 5th October, 1983, the workmen of the petitioner went on illegal strike the petitioner firm could not use the power for production during the entire period and there was no production and that the petitioner informed the Board about the illegal strike vide its letter dated 13th October, 1983 (Annx 1). According to the petitioner, the said strike continued upto 3rd Feb, 1984 and during the period the petitioner informed the Chief Engineer (O&M) of the Board from time to time, as per the requirement of Clause 1(b) of the Agreement. The petitioner has claimed that on account of the closure of the factory of the petitioner from 13th October, 1983 to 3rd February, 1984, the petitioner is entitled to the reduction of the minimum charges under Clause 17 (b) of the Agreement and that in spite of notice of demand the excess amount of Rs. 2,21,064.96 has not been refunded to the petitioner. The petitioner has therefore, prayed that an appropriate writ, order of direction may be issued to declare the demand of minimum charges raised by the Board for the period from 13th October, 1983 to 3rd February, 1934 as illegal and to quash the same and the Board may he directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,21,064.96 along with bank interest to the petitioner.

2. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents who have tiled a reply. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the said reply.

3. The first contention that has been urged by Shri Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in accordance with Clause 17 (b) of the Agreement, the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the amount paid by it on account of minimum charge in respect of the period from 5th October, 1983 to 3rd February, 984, in as much as the case of the petitioner is fully covered by clause 17 (b) of the Agreement. We are unable to accept this contention. As pointed out earlier, Clause 17 (b) of the Agreement, which is applicable in cases where the consumer is unable to under the electric energy for certain specified reason, including strike by the workmen. From the record, we find that in the present case, the petitioner declared a look-out of the industry on 10th October, 1983 and the failure to use the electricity by the petitioner was on account of the said lock-out. This is borne out by the notice Annx. R/311 dated 9th October, 1083, issued by the petitioner, whereby the petitioner declared lock-out in its