JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing synthetic yarn. An agreement dated 4th of November, 1981 was entered into between the petitioner-company and the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (the Board) under which the Board had undertaken to supply electric energy to the petitioner-company with a maximum contract demand of 750 KVA, High Tension Connection. This demand was firstly extended to 1500 KVA and at present stands extended to 2500 KVA. The Government of Rajasthan (the State Government), in exercise of its power conferred under sections 22-A and 22-B of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, issued a notification dated 8th of October, 1987 (Annexure-1) stating that the Board shall introduce cuts, impose restrictions on the use of power/energy by the establishments of Industries which are essential to maintain the supply and services to the community at variance, to the other categories of consumers, as and when the power supply position so warrants and that the essential services of and the category of consumers for the purpose of giving preferential treatment shall be as per the decision taken from time to time by the Task Force on energy constituted by the Government. In accordance with the recommendations made by the Task Force, the State Government issued notification dated 5th of May, 1988 (Annexure-3) under which industries, including those having contract demand upto 1250 KVA were exempted from power cuts. The petitioner-company, who is having the contract demand of 2500 KVA and who was not covered by the said notification, filed D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1604/88 contending that preferential treatment to units having less than 1250 KVA contract demand etc. in the supply of electricity was illegal and praying that the Board be directed not to impose any power cut in the matter of supply of electricity to the petitioner. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the State Government issued notification dated 17th of July, 1989 (Annexure-4) directing that the industries having contract demand upto 3000 KVA would be exempted from power cuts. The Assistant Engineer of the Board directed the petitioner-company to use only 300 units during the peak load hours i.e. between 6.00 P.M. to 10.00 P.M. every day and threatened to cut off the electric supply of the petitioner- company if the directions were not followed. The Assistant Engineer of the Board directed the petitioner-company to use only 300 units during the peak load hours i.e. between 6.00 P.M. to 10.00 P.M. every day and threatened to cut off the electric supply of the petitioner- company if the directions were not followed. The petitioner company has filed this writ petition contending that the petitioner-company being covered by notification (Annexure-4) could nol be directed to use less power energy during the peak hours or at any point of time any day and sought a direction from this Court to the Board and its officers to supply uninterrupted power to the petitioner-company to the extent of their contract demand. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent-Board to show cause why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. In reply, the writ petition has been opposed on the ground that under the terms of the agreement between the parties the petitioner-company had agreed to restrict or regulate consumption of electric energy during peak hours and that such restriction is a normal phenomenon and is in the interest of the public at large as well as to save the transformers, system and installations of the Board from possible damage and it has been contended that the notification (Annexure-4) deals with only power cuts and not the right of the respondent-Board to regulate the energy supply during peak hours in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the parties. The writ petition has also been opposed on the ground that the petitioner-company has suppressed the above said material term between the parties and is not entitled for any relief. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused-the documents produced on record. 4. The only question raised and which requires decision in this case is as to whether the Board, by issuing directions to the petitioner-company to use less energy during peak hours, has imposed power cut on the petitioner-company as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-company or whether the restriction in use of the energy during peak hours in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the parties would not amount. to power cut covered by notification (Annexure-4) ? 5. to power cut covered by notification (Annexure-4) ? 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it will be advantageous to reproduce the relevant clause of the agreement between the parties as also the relevant portions of notification (Annexure-3) and notification (Annexure-4) : Clause (22-A) of the agreement: "The consumer agrees to restrict or regulate consumption of electrical energy supplied under this agreement during peak hours as may be directed by the Chief Engineer of the Board in writing and any other hours as and when required to do so if the power position or any other emergency warrants such an action." Annexure-3 dated 5.5.1988: "In exercise of powers conferred on the State Government under section 22-A and 22-B of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Central Act 9 of 1910) the State Government hereby orders in public interest that Rajasthan State Electricity Board shall introduce cuts, impose restrictions on the use of power/energy by the establishment or industries which are essential to maintain the supply and services to the community at variance to the other categories of consumers as and when the power supply position or warrants. The category of consumer for the purpose of giving preferential treatment shall be as under as per the decision taken in the meeting of Task force on energy on 1-2-1988, constituted vide order No. F.5(17)/AR-3/85 dated 2.12.1985." Annexure-4 dated 17.7.1989: " Hkkjrh; fo|qr vf/kfu;e 1910 ( 1910 dk dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e ) dh /kkjk 22d vkSj 22@[k ds v/khu jkT; ljdkj dks izn�k 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj yksd fgr esa blds }kjk vkns'k nsrh gS fd jktLFkku jkT; fo|qr e.My 3000 ds0oh0 rd {kerk okys ,p0Vh0 m|ksx dks ikoj inksfr ls eqDr j[ksxkA ;g vkns'k rqjUr izHkko ls ykxw gksxk vkSj vkxkeh vkns'k rd lEiw.kZ jktLFkku esa ykxw jgsxkA " 6. Bare perusal of Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 show that whereas the former authorises the Board to introduce cuts and to impose restrictions on the use of power/energy, the latter only exempts the industrial unit with contract demand upto 3000 KVA from the power cuts. In my view, by using words "introduce cuts" and "impose restrictions on the use of power" the notification Annexure-3 has itself made distinction between the two powers of the Board. In my view, by using words "introduce cuts" and "impose restrictions on the use of power" the notification Annexure-3 has itself made distinction between the two powers of the Board. If every type of restriction in use of the energy amounted to power cut there was no purpose in mentioning "impose restrictions on the use of power" in notification (Annexure-3). It is not disputed that when power cut is imposed it is to the extent of the percentage specified in notification (Annexure-3) and it operates during the entire period of the day and for the period that notification (Annexure-3) remains in operation. It is also not disputed before me that it is only during the peak hours that the petitioner-company has been directed to use the electric energy to the specified limit every day and for the remaining period of the day the petitioner is at liberty to use the energy upto the contract demand. It appears that with a view to safeguard the installations like transformers of the Board as also to regulate the supply to the various consumers the respondent-Board has regained its power to impose restrictions on the bulk consumers like the petitioner and such term has been incorporated in Clause 22(a) of the agreement between the parties. In my view, such restrictions imposed by the Board in exercise of powers conferred on it in terms of the above said Clause of the agreement does not get effected by the notification which deals only with power cuts. 7. It has rightly been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent- Board that the petitioner-company who had undertaken to have the power restriction under Clause 22(a) of the agreement cannot be allowed to contend that the petitioner is entitled to have the electric supply to its full extent even during the peak hours although it may mean damage to the transformers and other installations of the Board and depriving the other consumers from use of electricity. 8. Consequently, finding the writ petition to be without any merit I dismiss it with costs.Petition dismissed. *******