Y. V. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) ). THE present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to declare the proceedings of the second respondent in Letter No. SE/op/ sao/ht/d. No. 651/99, dated 22-5-1999 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to terminate the petitioner s h. T. Agreement with effect from 23-3-1999. ( 2 ) ). The petitioner herein is a Private limited Company. It has established its plant at Kondamadugu village of Nalgonda district and is having a High Tension power supply from the respondent corporation with a contracted maximum demand of 450 KVA. The petitioner company has become a sick unit and hence, it has addressed a letter dated 20-12-1998 to the Superintending Engineer, Operation requesting him to reduce the maximum demand to 20 KVA from 450 KVA. Since there was no response for this letter, another letter dated 20-3-1999 was addressed to the Chief Engineer, commercial by the petitioner-Company requesting him for a deration of power supply with effect from 22-3-1999. The chief Engineer of the respondent-Board also did not respondent to that letter. Subsequently by a letter dated 8-4-1999, the petitioner-Company addressed to the superintending Engineer requesting him for a deration of the power supply with effect from 23-3-1999. It appears from the said letter that there was a discussion in that regard and the petitioner-Company was advised to go for a deration of power for 70 kva or for total dismantlement. Ultimately the Board issued a letter on 22-5-1999 through the Superintending Engineer to the petitioner-Company advising it to give another letter for dismantlement of the H. T. supply and the letter already addressed by the petitioner-Company dated 20-12-1998 could not be treated as three months notice. ( 3 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the notice dated 20-12-1998 issued by the petitioner-Company can be treated as a notice of termination within the meaning of Clause 26. 8 of the terms and conditions of supply; clause 26. 8 is as follows:"26. 8. Termination of Agreement in respect of H. T. supply: the Consumer is at liberty to seek reduction or termination of the agreement by giving three months notice in writing expressing his intention to do so at any time after the period of two years from the date of commencement of agreement. 8 is as follows:"26. 8. Termination of Agreement in respect of H. T. supply: the Consumer is at liberty to seek reduction or termination of the agreement by giving three months notice in writing expressing his intention to do so at any time after the period of two years from the date of commencement of agreement. The board can terminate the agreement at anytime by giving one week s notice if the consumer violates the terms of the agreement or the terms and conditions of supply prescribed by the APSEB from time to time or the provision of any law touching the agreement including the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Rules made thereunder. " ( 4 ) TAKING into consideration the correspondence made from 20-12-1998 to the period up to 22-5-1999, it is obvious that the Board has been given a notice by the petitioner-Company and has been persuaded to take action. The notice issued on 20-12-1998 is in accordance with the notice as contemplated under clause 26. 8. Therefore, it is not open to the Board to keep quiet for a period of five months and thereafter to issue a fresh letter dated 22-5-1999 asking the petitioner-Company to issue a fresh notice declining to treat the letter dated 20-12-1998 addressed by the petitioner-Company as notice, ( 5 ) FROM a reading of the correspondences dated 20-12-1998, 20-3-1999 and 8-4-1999, it is clear that the petitioner-Company has been pursuing the matter with the Electricity Board and the board took its own time and ultimately replied on 22-5-1999 directing the petitioner-Company to issue a fresh notice. This is quite contrary to the terms and conditions laid down in Clause 26. 8. Therefore, taking into account the facts and circumstances, the correspondence made thereon, and the conduct of the Board, I declare that the notice issued by the petitioner-Company on 20-12-1998 is a statutory notice within the meaning of clause 26. 8 and the correspondence also show that the Assistant Engineer, the divisional Engineer and the Superintending engineer have recommended for deration of power supply to the petitioner Company and on account of the delay the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and incurr loss. 8 and the correspondence also show that the Assistant Engineer, the divisional Engineer and the Superintending engineer have recommended for deration of power supply to the petitioner Company and on account of the delay the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and incurr loss. ( 6 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, the respondents are directed to treat the notice dated 20-12-1998 issued by the petitioner- company as a Statutory notice and give power deration with effect from 23-3-1999. It goes without saying that the writ petitioner has to pay the minimum charges until 23-3-1999. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs