Judgment S.B. Sinha J. This application is directed against an order dated 19.8.1986 as contained in Annexure-8 to the application for amendment of the writ application passed by Shri S. Prasad, General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, South Bihar. & Chotanagpur Area Electricity Board, Ranchi. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner entered into an agreement on 25.3.1979 with the Bihar State Electricity Board for supply of High Tension electrical energy with a connected load of 100 KVA. 4. According to the petitioner, during the relevant period namely 1973-74 to 1984-85 it became entitled to proportionate reduction in AMC charges because the respondent-Board failed to supply electrical energy to the petitioner in terms of the said agreement. 5. Clause 13 of the said agreement reads as follows :- "If at any time the consumer is prevented from receiving or using the electrical energy to be supplied under this agreement, either in whole or in part due to strike, riots, fire, floods, explosions, act of God or any other causes reasonably beyond control of the consumer or if the Board is prevented from supplying or unable to supply such electrical energy to any or all the causes mentioned above, then the demand charges and guaranteed energy charge setout in the schedule shall be reduced in proportion to the ability of the consumer to take or the Board to supply such power. In case of any difference or dispute regarding any of the terms of this clause including the amount of reduction in the charges, the decision of the Chief Engineer of the Board shall be final." 6. According to the petitioner, although, it had tiled its claim from time to time for the period aforementioned the respondent no. 2 failed and/or neglected to dispose of the same within a reasonable period and thus the petitioner has come to this Court in a Dumber of writ applications wherein this Court directed the respondent no. 2 to dispose of the claim applications of the petitioner within the period mentioned therein. 7. By reason of the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 has disposed of the claim application filed by the petitioner in respect of the period 1974-75 to 1984-85. 8. Mr. B.P. Rajgarhia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. 7. By reason of the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 has disposed of the claim application filed by the petitioner in respect of the period 1974-75 to 1984-85. 8. Mr. B.P. Rajgarhia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. Firstly, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent no. 2 has not decided the petitioner's claim application for the year 1973-74. The learned counsel further submitted that from a perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure 9 it would appear that the respondent no. 2 has rejected a claim application filed by the petitioner holding inter alia, the following : "It was also found that during the period of 1977-78 to 1984-85, their connected load remained unaltered i.e. 197 H.P. and the purpose of the supply also remained same. Thus it is seen that even reduction in their contract demand from 175 KVA to 100 KVA with effect from l.1.1977 did not serve their purpose and they had again to reduce their contract demand from 100 KVA to 75 KVA. Even then the consumer was not in position to consume the minimum guaranteed units as set out in schedule of agreement based only 25% load factor as per tariff. From the above, it may be concluded that the consumer was unable to consume even 25% energy against the contract demand to meet the minimum guaranteed units as set out in the Schedule and in accordance with the prevailing tariff even after meeting 66.4% to 98.40% of their full requirement of electric power based on their contract demand for the reasons which were well within their control as the consumer has assessed his requirement wrongly which is not covered by reasons under clause-13 of the agreement. From this, it is clear that consumer was not in a position to ascertain the real cause of interruption. The consumer has not put forward any point/record/paper from which it may be established that power was not supplied to them on account of negligence of the staff of the Board. As such relief can not be granted in absence of establishing fully the cause against which the relief has been sought. The consumer has not put forward any point/record/paper from which it may be established that power was not supplied to them on account of negligence of the staff of the Board. As such relief can not be granted in absence of establishing fully the cause against which the relief has been sought. From the interruption report made available by the consumer, it is seen that barring a few cases all interruptions are of very short duration which are not avoidable and "reasons incidental to business" in case of electricity supply business. It will not be out of place to reproduce para 9 of the proforma prescribed for lodging the claim under clause 13 of H.T. Agreement which reads as follows :- "(9) Why the cause under which reduction in demand charge and guaranteed energy charge met out in the schedule to the agreement proportionate to the inability of the consumer to take supply of power as claimed by the consumer should not be treated as "reasons incidental to business". It is worthwhile to mention here that consumer, has neither mentioned any thing in their claim application submitted for the years 1974-75 to 1984-85 nor any point/paper/record has been produced and submitted to show and establish the cause on account of which they have claimed relief, should not be treated as "reasons incidental to the business". Non-supply of electrical energy was only due to reasons incidental to the business of electricity." 9. According to Mr. Rajgarhia, all the reasons assigned by the respondent no. 2 are extraneous inasmuch as the installed load of the factory premises of the petitioner has got nothing to do with inability on its part to consume electrical energy and in view of the fact that admittedly the Bihar State Electricity Board has not been able to supply the electrical energy for the entire period during which the factory belonging to the petitioner was to operate. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no. 2 misdirected himself in law in holding that the petitioner has failed to prove the negligence on the part of the staff of the Bihar State Electricity Board. 11. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that from a perusal of clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no. 2 misdirected himself in law in holding that the petitioner has failed to prove the negligence on the part of the staff of the Bihar State Electricity Board. 11. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that from a perusal of clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement. it would appear that inability on the part of Board to supply electrical energy for the 'reasons incidental to business' is not cine of the factors enumerated therein and thus, the same should not have been taken into consideration by the respondent no. 2 in rejecting the claim application filed on behalf of the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel next contended that clause 9 of the proforma prescribed for lodging a claim is merely directory in nature and the respondent no.2 should not have refused to look into the documents filed by the petitioner and particularly the log-book the authenticity whereof was not in question as the same bear the signature of the authorities of the Bihar State Electricity Board also. 13. Mr. B.S. Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Board, on the other hand, submitted that this Court should not interfere with the impugned order as the respondent no. 2 has assigned sufficient and cogent reasons in support of its conclusions for passing the impugned order dated 19.8.1986. 14. From a perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure 8, it would appear that the petitioner bas produced various documents. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the respondent no. 2 to refer to the said documents for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to whether the petitioner has been able to show that it had not been able to consume the electrical energy owing to power cut, trippings and other sorts of interventions in supply of electrical energy by the Bihar State Electricity Board. 15. It further appears from the log books which have been produced before me that the interruptions and non-supply of electrical energy were not only for a short duration as has been observed by the respondent no. 2 in his impugned order but such interventions even remained for a period of 4-5 hours at a stretch. In my opinion, the submissions of Mr. Rajgarhia has substance. 16. The respondent no. 2 in his impugned order but such interventions even remained for a period of 4-5 hours at a stretch. In my opinion, the submissions of Mr. Rajgarhia has substance. 16. The respondent no. 2 appears to have arrived at a finding on the basis of irrelevant facts and without taking into consideration the relevant facts. So far as alleged inability on the part of the petitioner to consume electrical energy owing to installation of machinery having capacities less than the connected load is concerned, the respondent no. 2 should have assigned reasons as to how the same effected the claim of the petitioner that it had not been able to consume the electrical energy supplied by the Board. So far as the second reasonings of the respondent no. 2 is concerned, it may be observed that clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement does not cast the onus of proof upon the consumer to prove that the failure on the part of the Bihar State Electricity Board to supply the electrical energy to the consumer was owing to the negligence on the part of its staff is on the consumer. The Bihar State Electricity Board must be maintaining its own records as to when and for what reasons it had not been able to supply electrical energy to a particular area where the consumer's factory premises is situated. The same is within the special knowledge of the Bihar State Electricity Board. 17. The respondent no. 2 was, therefore, Dot justified throwing the burden of proof upon the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 has also misdirected himself in holding that except a few cases all interruptions were for short duration which were owing to the reasons incidental to business, of supply of electricity. 18. It has been held by this Court in M/s Asia Insulated Wires Private Ltd. & another vs. The South Bihar and Chotanagpur Area Electricity Board, Ranchi & ors. (C.W.J.C. no. 642 of 1987 (R) disposed of on 29th August, 1991) that a consumer cannot be precluded from obtaining the benefit of clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement on the ground that it has not been possible for the respondent-Board to supply electrical energy for reasons incidental to the business of the supply of electricity. 19. (C.W.J.C. no. 642 of 1987 (R) disposed of on 29th August, 1991) that a consumer cannot be precluded from obtaining the benefit of clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement on the ground that it has not been possible for the respondent-Board to supply electrical energy for reasons incidental to the business of the supply of electricity. 19. In that decision this Court upon taking into consideration the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bihar Electricity Board and another Vs. M/s Dhanawat Rice and Oil Mills, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1030 ; 1989 PLJR 19 (SC); Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna vs. M/s Green Rubber Industries, reported in AIR 1990 SC 699 : 1990 (1) PLJR 73 (SC) and Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. vs. Andhra Pradesh State: Electricity Board, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 263 , held:- "The respondent no. 2 has, thus, a public duty to perform when adjudicating upon claim of consumer for proportionate reduction in the AMG charges and particularly when its order is final it is required to consider the genuine claim of a consumer with objectivity. It must act judicially and its decision must be supported by reason." 20. Taking, thus, all facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that impugned order cannot be sustained. 21. In the result, this application is allowed, the imugned order as contained in Annexure 8 is quashed and the respondent no. 2 is hereby directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. 22. However, it will be open to the petitioner to file before the respondent no. 2 all the records which were earlier produced so as to enable him to come to a just decision. It also goes without saying that the respondent-Board also would be entitled to produce all the records in support of its contentions. The respondent no. 2 shall decide the claim of the petitioner in respect of the year 1973-74 on the basis of materials produced before it. The respondent no. 2 shall further pass a fresh order in respect of the period 1974-75 to 1984-85 in the light of the observations made hereinbefore and \n accordance with law. The respondent no. 2 shall dispose of the entire matter with utmost expedition and not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 2 shall further pass a fresh order in respect of the period 1974-75 to 1984-85 in the light of the observations made hereinbefore and \n accordance with law. The respondent no. 2 shall dispose of the entire matter with utmost expedition and not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It also goes without saying that the line of the petitioner shall not be disconnected on account of non-payment of AMG charges for the period 1973-74 to 1984-85. It is however, clarified that the petitioner shall be liable to pay all other dues to the Bihar State Electricity Board. 23. This application is allowed with the aforementioned observations and directions. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.