JUDGMENT 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. 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 factory with effect from 1 A.M. on 10th October, 1983. The other documents, namely, Annx R/I dated 25th October, 1983, Annx. 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 factory with effect from 1 A.M. on 10th October, 1983. The other documents, namely, Annx R/I dated 25th October, 1983, Annx. R/2 dated 29th October, 1981 and Annx. R/4 dated 3rd November, 1983 which were sent from the office of the Joint Labour Commissioner, Jaipur to the petitioner, also show that talks were being held in connection with the lock-out in the factory of the petitioner. In the notice (Annx 1) dated 13th Oct. 1983, which was sent by the petitioner to the Chief Engineer (O&M) of the Board, the petitioner has stated that lock-out had been declared on 16th October, 1983, and the reason for declaring the lock-out as mentioned in the said notice, was that the workmen had created trouble in the working of the factory since 5th October, 1983 and had tried to cause loss to the Cell-room and had threatened damage to the machines in the premises. It would, thus, appear that there was look-out in the factory of the petitioner from 10th October, 1983 and the factory was not closed due to strike as claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition. Clause 17 (b) of the Agreement has, therefore, no application to the percent case. 4. Shri Rastogi has next urged that in the present case, the Chief Engineer of the Board on 26th April, 1984, had accepted the claim of the petitioner for refund of the minimum charge under Clause 17 (b) of the Agreement. In support of the above submission, he has placed reliance on the letter dated 26th April, 1984 addressed by the Chief Engineer (O&M) of the Board to the Director, Commercial Operation of the Board. The said letter has been filed as Schedule A to the rejoinder. We have perused the said letter, which is in the nature of an inter departmental communication, wherein the Chief Engineer has expressed the view that the petitioner had been prevented from using electric energy supplied under the Agreement due to the strike of the workers/lock-our and that it is a fit case for remission of the minimum charges during this period. The said letter further shows that the letter was forwarded by the Chief Engineer for communicating the competent approval in accordance with the Commercial Department's confidential letter No. 1119 dated 20th May, 1976, since the period of occurrence is more than three months. The letter dated 20th May, 1976, referred to above is from the Superintending Engineer. (Commercial), RSEB, Jaipur to the Chief Engineer (O&M). It has been placed on record as Annx. R/4A with the reply In the said letter, certain guide-lines have been given whereby (i) in respect of consumers having a contract demand upto 1000 KVA, the Chief Engineer has been authorised to waive such charges upto a period of three months; (ii) in respect of consumers having a contract demand above 1000 KVA and upto 2000 KVA the Chief Engineer has been authorised to waive off such charges upto a period of one month; and (iii) in respect of consumers having a contract demand above 2000 KVA and the cases which are not covered under items (i) and (ii) above, the Chief Engineer has been empowered to finalise the matter with the prior approval of the Chairman. In the reply that has been filed on behalf of the Board, it has been stated that after receipt of the letter dated 26th April 1984, the Director (Commercial Operation) of the Board got the matter examined from the Director, Legal Affairs, and after obtaining his opinion, the Director (Commercial Operation) informed the Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 12th June, 1984 for review/re examination of the matter and to send recommendation again. Thereafter the Chief Engineer, through its Executive Engineer, informed the Director Commercial Operation) vide his letter dated 12th August, 1986 that the case is not recommended under Clause 17 (b) of the Agreement. It would, thus, appear that initially the Chief Engineer (O & M) of the Board felt that it was fit case for remission of the minimum charge because the petitioner was prevented from receiving or using electrical energy due to the strike of the workmen/lock-out, but when the legal implications were pointed out to him, he considered the matter again and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any remission under Clause 17 (b) of the Agreement. The letter dated 26th April, 1984 was in the nature of an inter-departmental communication only and was not communicated to the petitioner. The letter dated 26th April, 1984 was in the nature of an inter-departmental communication only and was not communicated to the petitioner. On the basis of the said letter, the petitioner cannot claim that the Chief Engineer had accepted his claim for remission of the minimum charges. The Chief Engineer, after full consideration of the matter, arrived at the conclusion that remission cannot be granted under Clause 17 (b) of the Agreement. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the basis of the earlier communication sent by the Chief Engineer to the Director (Commercial Operation) of the Board. 5. No other contention has been urged by Shri Rastogi. 6. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******