Judgment :- This writ petition comes up after notice of motion is served. The prayer in the writ petition is for Mandamus directing the respondent to restore the service connection No.35 to the Unit of the petitioner at No.92, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ranipet, North Arcot District, after quashing the order in Lr. No . AAO/SH R/A. S.5/BA.1/S.C. No.35/89 dated 11-9-1989. The petitioner was having service connection for a load of 101 H.P. to his Unit from the year 1979-80. The company became a sick unit and it remained closed from 31-10-1986. As the factory was closed, the petitioner requested the respondent by letter dated 30-10-1986 to reduce the load to 10 H.P. from 101 H.P. In reply thereto, the respondent sent the communication dated 10-12-1986, which reads as follows :- "The reduction in load requested by the consumer is permitted since the agreement period is already over. The CC arrears if any should be cleared before reduction in on load is permitted. The sanction load after reduction of load would be 10 HP instead of 101 HP now existing. The Labour charges etc., for change of meter should be collected from the party and revised rest report obtained." * 2. In September, 1989, the impugned letter was sent by the Assistant Accounts Officer, Revenue Branch, Sholinghur, to the petitioner calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.9120/- being the dues payable to the Board as on the date of disconnection and is outstanding to be paid by him. The disconnection is said to have been made on 16-3-1989 and referred to in the said letter. The letter also calls upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues along with belated payment surcharge / interest thereon and reconnection charges within three months from the date of receipt of the said letter failing which the agreement between the Board and the petitioner would stand terminated on the expiry of the said period of three months. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 21-9-1989 to the concerned Accounts Officer pointing out that he had obtained a reduction of the load to 10 H.P. from 101 H.P. but by mistake the was paying the minimum charges for the load on the strength of 101 H.P. According to him, he had paid an amount of Rs. 26, 000/ - in excess. 26, 000/ - in excess. He had requested in the letter that the reduction of the load from 101 H.P. to 10 H.P. may be given effect from December, 1986 and the excess amount paid by him may be refunded. He had also requested for the immediate restoration of the service connection. He has also stated that he is not liable to pay the reconnection charges since the Board was at fault. It is followed by a communication dated 28-12-1989 by the petitioner to the Assistant Engineer in which he had stated that he was in need of power supply and he requested the Assistant Engineer to arrange to give reconnection immediately and offered to pay the G.C. charges under protest. 3. After waiting for some time, the petitioner finding that there was no response to his letter had come forward with this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner failed to perform that he was bound to do when he had asked for reduction of the load. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner was bound to have had inspection of the machinery, by the concerned Engineer and change of meter and paid the labour charges therefor. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner's duty was to see that a test report was sent by the concerned Junior Engineer to the concerned authorities. 5. I do not agree with this contention. It is seen from the letter dated 10-12-1986, which is extracted in full already, that the petitioner had nothing to do for his part. The first paragraph of the letter accepted the petitioner's prayer and sanctioned reduction in load. The second paragraph in the letter contained a direction given to the concerned Junior Engineer. It stated that the labour charges etc., for change of meter should be collected from the party. That was a clear direction given to the Junior Engineer. Again, the direction to obtain revised test report was only to the Junior Engineer. It was the duty of the Junior Engineer to have inspected the premises and submitted a test report after changing the meter. He should have informed the petitioner of the labour charges etc., for change of meter and collected the same. Again, the direction to obtain revised test report was only to the Junior Engineer. It was the duty of the Junior Engineer to have inspected the premises and submitted a test report after changing the meter. He should have informed the petitioner of the labour charges etc., for change of meter and collected the same. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the Junior Engineer ever wanted to inspect the premises or informed the petitioner about the same. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the factory was closed and the officers of the department could not have visited the premises. There is no substance in this argument. Even though the factory was closed, the petitioner was in correspondence with the concerned officers and it was at his instance the reduction in load was sanctioned. The concerned Junior Engineer could have certainly sent a communication to him to keep the premises open to have inspection and carry out the direction given in the letter dated 10-12-1986. Since the Junior Engineer concerned failed to do his duty, the petitioner cannot be penalised therefor. 6. However, the petitioner has been paying the minimum charges as if the load was 101 H.P. According to the petitioner, it was by mistake. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner could not have been paying so for such a long time under a mistake and because he had been without demur paying the amounts, the petitioner cannot claim now any relief on the basis that there was a reduction of the load to 10 H.P. This argument is clearly unsustainable. The petitioner has actually paid much more than what was payable by him. Once the sanctioned load was reduced from 101 H.P. to 10 H.P. the petitioner was not bound to pay anything more than what was due for 10 H.P. But, in view of the failure on the part of the concerned officers of the respondent, the petitioner had been paying much more than what was due. The petitioner cannot be penalised for paying more amount than what was due and payable by him. 7. The letter dated 11-9-1989 by which the agreement stood terminated on the expiry of three months therefrom, is not a valid one. It is because of a mistake the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. The petitioner cannot be penalised for paying more amount than what was due and payable by him. 7. The letter dated 11-9-1989 by which the agreement stood terminated on the expiry of three months therefrom, is not a valid one. It is because of a mistake the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9120/- As per the petitioner's letter dated 21-9-1989 he had paid a sum of Rs. 26, 000/ - in excess of what was due from him. The respondent ought to have adjusted from that excess payment the amount said to be due from the petitioner. Without considering the letter of the petitioner, dated 21-9-1989, the respondent has terminated the agreement entered into with the Board on the expiry of three months from 11-9-1989. Such termination is clearly unwarranted and unlawful. It is not open to the respondent to terminate the agreement if more than what is due by the petitioner had been paid to the respondent. 8. Now that the petitioner has offered to pay the C.C. charges under protest, it is the duty of the respondent to restore the service connection. Hence, a mandamus is hereby issued to the respondent directing the respondent to restore the service connection No. 35 immediately to the petitioners. The restoration shall be carried out on or before 15-2-1990. As agreed by the petitioner, he shall pay the C.C. charges under protest without prejudice to his claim for refund of the excess payment. 9. It is open to the petitioner to take proceedings for recovery of the excess amount said to have been paid by him. It is open to the respondent to contend that no amount is due by the respondent to the petitioner. That is a matter which has to be decided elsewhere in the appropriate forum. 10. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed on the above terms and there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.