Judgment Satyeshwar Roy, J and JJ. 1. The petitioner, a consumer of the Bihar State Electricity Board, respondent No.1, prayed for quashing Annexure 11, letter dated 16-7-1985 by which the petitioner was informed that in view of the fact that respondent No.2 has rejected the claim of the petitioner, the amount which was kept in abeyance together with interest, i. e. Rs.3,18,171.44 up to May, 198)was payable by the petitioner. The petitioner was further informed that if that amount was not paid within serven days from the date of issue of the letter, the electric line would be disconnected. The order of respondent No.2 for keeping the dues of the petitioner in abeyance which has been referred in Annexure 11 is contained in letter dated 21-11-1893 which is part of Annexure 2. 2. The petitioner is a consumer of the Board. In the business permises of the petitioner electroplator of various sizes ranging from 5 H P. to 25 H. P. are fitted and therefore, two part tariff meter with graduation O KVA to 95 KVA with multiplication factor has been installed. The meters have the capacity to read the maximum of 190 KVA only. la the meter KWH and K. VAH readings are shown separately and these two readings are used to evaluate the energy consumption and power factor for all practical purposes being taken as O.80 which cannot be more than 1 in any case Since the year 1979, the meter started recording consumption of more than 190 KVA and the power factor also recorded more than 1, the petitioner several times brought the matter to the notice of respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the irregular and irratic reading of meter or the wrong recording of the meter reading indicated that either the meter had gone defective or the meter reader had deliberately recorded a wrong reading. On scrutiny it was found that the meter was correct and, therefore, the meter reading was incorrect resulting in excessive billing by the Board. The petitioner filed representation on 22nd October, 1983 for the periods 1978-79 to 1981-82 to respondent No.3 for considering the case and settling its claim. The representation so filed is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Respondent No.3 forwarded the representation with his comment to respondent No.2. The comment of Respondent No.3 is contained in Annexure-3. The petitioner filed representation on 22nd October, 1983 for the periods 1978-79 to 1981-82 to respondent No.3 for considering the case and settling its claim. The representation so filed is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Respondent No.3 forwarded the representation with his comment to respondent No.2. The comment of Respondent No.3 is contained in Annexure-3. Respondent No.2 in his turn be letter dated 22-11-1983 ordered respondent No.3 to inspect the factory premises of the petitioner and submit his report giving all the technical details. Respondent No.2 further ordered that meanwhile the dues of the petitioner would be kept in abeyance and electric line be restored. Respondent no.3 in his turn sent a copy of the letter to respondent No.4 for compliance with regard to the last part of the order of respondent No.2. The order of respondent No.2 given to respondent No.3 is part of Annexure 2. The Superintending Engineer inspected the factory permises of the petitioner and submitted his report to respondent No.2 which is Annexure 3/a to the writ petition. Respondent No.3 opined that due to the wrong taking of reading of KVAH, the consumer had to pay penalty of low-power factor. He recommended that necessary order be passed to regularise the billing of the consumer by adjusting the excessive billing on account of lower power factor. Respondent No.4 by Annexure 8, dated 3-12-1984 also informed respondent No.3 that because of the wrong meter reading by the Assistant Electrical Engineer (respondent No.5) the situation could have arisen. He further informed respondent No.3 that respondent No.5 was being asked to file his show cause. Thereafter Annexure 11 was issued by respondent No.6 by which the petitioner was i nformed that respondent no.2 has rejected the representation of the petitioner. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents sworn by respondent No.6. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that on a representation filed by the petitioner on 28-4-1980 with regard to the bill for the month of march, 1980, the meter was examined and it was decided that as there could be some mistake in taking the reading a sum of Rupees thirteen thousand and odd was adjusted with the bill October, 1980. Further representation filed by the petitioner on the ground of excessive billing was examined by the respondents and it was informed that no excess billing was done. Further representation filed by the petitioner on the ground of excessive billing was examined by the respondents and it was informed that no excess billing was done. By Annexure B the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,18,261.31, the amount outstanding up to August, 1983. In spite of the fact that the earlier representation of the petitioner had been disposed of the petitioner again raised dispute for the period 1978-79 to 1981-82. Respondent No.2 applied his mind to the facts of the case and on the basis of the report of respondent No.3 and analytical notes of the Deputy Director of accounts, held that no relief was admissible to the petitiouer. 4. An application for amendment of the writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 4-10-1985. In that position it was stated that at the time of filing of the writ petition the petitioner was not informed about the exact order passed by respondent No.2 on its representation. The order of respondent No.2 was communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Director of Accounts by his letter dated 11-7-1985. This was marked as Annexure 12-A to the writ petition. The petitioner prayed for quashing Annexure 12-A. This writ petition was admitted on 9-10-1985, i. e. after filing of the counter affidavit acd the amendment petition. 5. The whole thrust of the submission of the petitioner is that the rejection of the representation of the petitioner by respondent No.2 without assigning any reason cannot be sustained. Respondent No.2 while rejecting the representation of the petitioner held as follows : "no relief is admissible and claim of the consumer is rejected. The dues kept in abeyance together with the up to date dues may be billed for and relied. In view of the Gross re enue collection drive and the financial strengency no instalment is recommended and grant of instalment is left to the Board. " According to the petitioner since it has been fastened with liability under the tariff framed by the Board under Sections 46 and 49 of the Electricity (Supply)Act, 1948, it was necessary for respondent No.2 to assign reasons on the basis of which the representation of the petitioner was rejected. " According to the petitioner since it has been fastened with liability under the tariff framed by the Board under Sections 46 and 49 of the Electricity (Supply)Act, 1948, it was necessary for respondent No.2 to assign reasons on the basis of which the representation of the petitioner was rejected. It was further contended that in view of the fact that both respondent Nos.3 and 4 found as fact lhat the respondent No.6 had wrongly read the meter which resulted in excess billing, respondent No.2 was required to assign reasons, more so, when the report of respondent No.3 as contained in Annexures 3 and 3/a stated the grounds on which respondent No.3 was satisfied that the matter was not correctly read by respondent No.3. On behalf of the respondents it was contended that as respondent No.2 was not discharging any quasi-judicial function while dealing with the representation of the petitioner, respondent No.2 was not required to assign any reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It was urged on behalf of the respondents that in view of the agreement executed by the petitioner as contained in Annexures C and D under which the petitioner has accepted its liability, the petitioner cannot be allowed to change its liability, the petitioner cannot be allowed to change its position and challenge the decision of respondent No.2. 6. So fur the submission made on behalt of the respondents with reference to Annexures C and D is concerned, it will appear from those two annexures lhat the petitioner agreed to pay the amount mentioned therein in instalment. The dues or the claim of the Board accepted by the petitioner was with regard to fuel surcharge, a nual minimum guarantee and energy charge. In both the annexures there is clear stipulation that Annexures C and D shall not apply to the dues which were subject-matter of dispute pending before respondent no.2. Therefore, this writ petition cannot be thrown out on the ground that the petitioner had executed two agreements accepting its liability. 7. Objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that since the rights and liabilities of the parties are purely contractual and is covered by the terms of contract, the writ petition was not maintainable. Reliance, was placed in M/s. Radhaakrishna Agarwal and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1977 SC 1496 . 7. Objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that since the rights and liabilities of the parties are purely contractual and is covered by the terms of contract, the writ petition was not maintainable. Reliance, was placed in M/s. Radhaakrishna Agarwal and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1977 SC 1496 . It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the rights and labilities flow from the provision of the Indian Electricity Act and Electricity (Supply) Act. The contract, therefore, flows from the statute and if there has been any breach of the same, petitioner was entitled to the relief. Reliance was placed in Mjs. Man industrial Corporation V/s. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and others, AIR 1986 Rajsthan 137. It has been clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in radhakrishna Agarwals case (supra) relying in K. N. Guruswamy V/s. State of mysore, AIR 1954 SC 592 that relief could be granted in a case where contract entered into between the persons aggrieved and the State Government is in exercise of the statutory power under certain Act or Rules framed therein and the petitioner alleges breach on the part of the State. According to the petitioner since the Board is claiming the amount in exercise of its power derived under the tariff framed under Sec.49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, and as there was statutory contract between the parties in view of the provisions of that Act, it was not a case of enforcement of purely contractual obligation and the petitioner was entitled to claim relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. If, therefore, it is held that the Board was discharging its statutory function and claiming its due on the basis of the tariff, it must be held that the petitioner is entitled to seek relief in writ jurisdiction from this Court. 8. The Board is a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act and is covered by the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act. In terms of Sec.49 of the electricity (Supply) Act the Board fixes the tariff on the basis of which electricity is sold to its consumers, I may refer to the schedule to the Indian Electricity act. The provisions in the schedule shall be deemed to be incorporated with, and to form part of every licence under Part II, so far as not added to, varied or excepted by the licence. The provisions in the schedule shall be deemed to be incorporated with, and to form part of every licence under Part II, so far as not added to, varied or excepted by the licence. It has not been shown on behalf of the respondents that the provisions of the schedule have been revised so far the Board is concerned. Clause VI (I) of the schedule, inter alia, provides that if a requisition is made by any owner or occupier of any premises statute within the area of supply requiring the licensee to supply energy for such permises the licensee shall, within one month from the making of the requisition or within such longer period as the Electrical inspector may allow, supply and save in so far as he is prevented from doing so by cyclone, floods, storms or other occurrences beyond his control continue to supply, eneray in accordance with the requisition. The first proviso to this sub-clause provides that the licensee shall not be bound to comply with any such requisition unless and until the person making it within fourteen days after the service on him by the licensee of a notice in writing in this behalf, tenders to the licensee a written contract, in a form approved by the State Government duly executed binding him to the terms stipulated therein. It is not in dispute in this case that no written agreement has been entered into by and between the petitioner and the Board. As the petitioner required the board to supply energy, and as this energy was supplied by the Board on the basis of the requisition made by the petitioner, it shall be deemed that energy was supplied by the Board to the petitioner only in pursuance of clause VI and the parties shall be deemed to have entered into a contract as envisaged in the proviso. The supply of energy by the Board to the petitioner is in discharge of its statutory duty and the parties have their respective rights and obligation as provided in the statutes. It, therefore, cannot be said that the petitioner wanted to enforce a contract qua-contract and in view of the provision of clause VI of the schedule to the indian Electricity Act, it must be held that the duties and obligation of the parties being statutory, the petitioner is entitled to seek relief in writ jurisdiction. It, therefore, cannot be said that the petitioner wanted to enforce a contract qua-contract and in view of the provision of clause VI of the schedule to the indian Electricity Act, it must be held that the duties and obligation of the parties being statutory, the petitioner is entitled to seek relief in writ jurisdiction. This was held in Man Industrial Corporations case (supra ). 9. That brings us to the question whether respondent No.2 while disposing of the representation of the petitioner was required to state icasons for rejecting its claim. 10. There is no dispute between the parties that there was nothing wrong with the meter. According to the petitioner, the excessive billing was due to the wrong reading of the meter and according to the respondents it was not so. I have already noticed that on the receipt of the representation of the petitioner contained in Annexure 1, respondent No.3 forwarded the same with his comment and that is cantained in Annexure 3. So far the reading in respect of KWH, kvah, and power factor is concerned, respondent No.3 also dealt with that and that finding is at page 40 of the brief. It concluded as follows : "now on the observations of the above facts and recommendation of the undersigned as well as Electrical Executive Engineer, Electrical Subdivision Daltonganj (copy enclosed) therein, necessary orders may kindly be passed to regularise the billings of consumer by adjusting the excess billing done on account of low power factor for the following reasons : (1) Readings were not taken jointly. (2) Reading taken by the field officers appears to by wrong in most of the months which resulted abnormal M. D. and P. F. Charges. The case may finally be considered favourable and your kind decision be communicated at the earliest to avoid further complications. The consumer is pressing hard as the service connection is lying disconnected due to non-payment of dues The consumer has been paying the consumption charges every month after deducting DPS and other charges. Order for reconnection of line may be given after perusal and kind orders. "respondent No.2 after receipt of Annexures 1 and 3,referred the matter to respondent No.3 by his letter which is part of Annexure 2. Respondent No.2 was of the opinion that:"the facts given by you are not only inadequate but also lack technical details. Order for reconnection of line may be given after perusal and kind orders. "respondent No.2 after receipt of Annexures 1 and 3,referred the matter to respondent No.3 by his letter which is part of Annexure 2. Respondent No.2 was of the opinion that:"the facts given by you are not only inadequate but also lack technical details. Please inspect the site of the consumer personally on 28-11-1983 and assess the total and correct installed any simultaneous maximum load installed in the consumers factory premises and submit your report within a fortnight after inspection and giving therein all the technical details. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " Thereafter, respondent No.3 submitted Annexure 3/a. The opinion of respondent No.3 that there has been wrong reading by the meter reader is corroborated by Annexure 8, the opinion of responcdent No.4. It was admitted by the learned counsel for the Board that respondent No.2 did not assign any reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner but simply observed that no relief was admissible to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the question is whether respondent No.2 was required to give reasons for rejecting the representation of the petitioner. There is no dispute that there is no statute which enjoins respondent No.2 to give reasons. But it cannot be dispute in this case that respondent No.2 was liable to raise bill only on the basis of correct reading of meter. Not only a consumer shall not be liable to pay the amount demanded by the Board if the demand is made on the basis of the reading recorded in a defective meter but also if the bill is raised on the basis of wrong reading of meter. The Board is entitled to recover from the petitioner the amount which he is liable to pay according to the correct reading of the meter and the petitioner has also obligation to pay according to the correct reading of the meter. If in fact the bill was raised on the basis of the wrong reading of meter by respondent No.5, it cannot be held that bill was raised in accordance with the tariff. If in fact the bill was raised on the basis of the wrong reading of meter by respondent No.5, it cannot be held that bill was raised in accordance with the tariff. The liability of the petitioner is statutory and, therefore, it was incumbent on the respondents to see that the petitioner was not saddled with the liability which it was not liable to pay under the tariff. Even if the respondent No.2 was discharging his administrative duty, he was required to act judicially. When two senior officers of the Board were of the opinion that there has been misreading of the meter it was incumbent on respondent No.2 to give reasons so that the Court in its power of review can see whether respondent No.2 acted within the limits of law. Once the reasons are assigned the Court may see whether any extraneous or irrelevant matters were taken into consideration and whether relevant matters were left out. Administrative agencies while disposing of a dispute is required to give reasons to see whether there is arbitrary exercise of the power. It was, therefore, incumbent on respondent No.3 to assign reason for rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 11 There is controversy between the parties whether there has been misreading of the meter. This Court cannot go into this disputed facts and record any finding whether is contention of the petitioner that there has been any misreading of meter is correct. The appropriate order, therefore, be to remit the matter to respondent No.2, who shall after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, dispose of the representation by a reasoned order. 12. In the result, this application is allowed, letter dated 16-7-1985 as contained in Annexure 11, and letter dated 11-7-1985 as contained in Annexure 12/a are quashed and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 (The General manager-cum-Chief Engineer, South Bihar and Chhotanagpur Area Electricity board, Ranchi) who shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner keeping in view the observations made above.