JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order (Annexure I ) dated the 2nd March, 1985 and the order (Annexure 3 ) dated the 5th April, 1985. The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing synthetics yarn and for the purposes of the said industry they obtained electricity connection from the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for brevity, 'the Board'). Originally the contract demand of the petitioners was 1250 KVA which was increased to 1500 KVA from January, 1984 onwards, and 2500 KVA from December, 1984 onwards. For the purposes of imposing power cut, the Electricity Board fixes the base-unit on the basis of which the power cut is imposed. By order dated the 2nd March, 1985 (Annexure I), daily base units of the petitioners were fixed to 10833 on the basis of the highest consumption of the petitioners for the twelve billing months from November, 1983 to October, 1984. The petitioners submitted a representation for revision of the base-units and for fixation of the base units as 27197. By order dated the 5th April, 1935 (Annexure 1) the base-units of the petitioners were maintained at 10833 units. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court passed an order on 1 5th September, 1986. wherein this Court noticed the contention of the petitioners that in the order dated 5th April, 1985 (Annexure 3). no ground has been made for the rejection of the representation of the petitioners 2nd the said order (Annexure 3) is not speaking one. This Court also noticed that the petitioners had submitted fresh representation on 10.5.1986. This Court, therefore, directed the electricity Board to hear the petitioner and to decide both the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month. 3. In pursuance of the said order of this Court, the matter was re-considered by the Chief Engineer (O&M), Electricity Board and an order dated 14.10.1986 was passed. This Court, therefore, directed the electricity Board to hear the petitioner and to decide both the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month. 3. In pursuance of the said order of this Court, the matter was re-considered by the Chief Engineer (O&M), Electricity Board and an order dated 14.10.1986 was passed. By the said order the increase in the contract demand of the petitioners was taken into consideration, and it has been held that the base-units of the petitioner could not have been 27197 units as claimed by the petitioners for various months after revision of base units to 18,055 has been checked and it has been observed that not even one the consumer has increased his average demand in any month in excess of 18,055 units per day. By the said order, the base units of the petitioners have been fixed at 18055 units per day. 4. Shri Paras Kuhad, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the criterion that has been adopted for fixing the base-units as 18055 in the order dated 14.10.1986 is arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as the said units have been fixed on the basis of consumption whereas the base-units should have been fixed on the basis of the contract demand. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission of Shri Paras Kuhad. We are unable to accept the same. In our opinion, for the purposes of fixing daily base units in order to impose power cut, it has to be fixed on the basis of actual consumption of the consumer. Thus, in fixing the base units on the basis of actual consumption the Electricity Board cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily of unreasonably We find that this aspect has been earlier considered by this Court in the Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills and another v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board (Civil Writ Petition No 1010/1985 decided on 18.7.1985 , wherein this Court has considered the same contention and it has been observed that : "The contract demand mentioned in the agreement between the consumer and the respondent Board is the maximum demand which the consumer can make on the respondent Board. In other words, it is the outer limit of the demand which can be made by a consumer on the respondent Board. The said demand can not he treated as normal demand. In other words, it is the outer limit of the demand which can be made by a consumer on the respondent Board. The said demand can not he treated as normal demand. Electricity is a commodity which cannot be stored It must be supplied and consumed on generation. For the purpose of imposing the power cut the respondent Board has therefore to take into account the demand which is actually being made by the various consumers. The respondent Board has fixed the base units after taking into account the highest units consumption in a month during the period of 12 months and dividing the same by the number of days of the month. In doing so, the respondent Board cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily or unreasonably." The same view has been taken by this Court in (2) M/s. Mangalam Cement Limited v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur (Civil writ Petition No.2214/ 1985 decided on April 19, 1986) . 6. We find out agreement with the said decisions. For the reasons given in the said decisions. We find no merit in this writ petition and accordingly dismiss the same. The interim stay order stands vacated. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******