Judgment :- The petitioner, an industrial establishment, seeks for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.2,10,155/- to the petitioner in respect of the HTSC 1128. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies' Act and was engaged in the manufacture of welded mesh having High Tension Service Connection No.1128. The factory was closed from 31.12.1996 due to labour problems and the petitioner had, therefore, requested for a temporary disconnection of power for a period of three months. Accordingly the power was disconnected. However, it was not possible to reopen the factory and dispute had been raised by the workmen regarding closure of the factory. After the failure of conciliation, the Government had referred the dispute for adjudication. 3. As the factory could not be reopened, the Electricity Board terminated the agreement in March 2000. According to the petitioner, the Board ought not to have made any demand for the period from January 1997. But, however, the Board was making claim for 100 per cent till December 1997. This was amounting to approximately, Rs.15,875/- per month. Though the amount due towards January 1997 was paid by the petitioner, the petitioner was unable to pay the amount from 1997 onwards. It is further stated by the petitioner that without following the procedures, the agreement was terminated without any proper notice and that too, after more than three years. The petitioner further contends that during the period of closure, the Board was not justified to levy any charges in view of the Clause 13.12 of the terms and conditions of the Board. 4. Immediately after termination of the agreement in the year 2000, a letter was written by the second respondent stating that after adjusting the deposit, a sum of Rs.1,38,126/- has to be paid. However, the said amount was paid on 24.05.2000 under protest and subject to the outcome of the petitioner's representation before the first respondent. Thereafter also number of representations were made and finally, the second respondent issued a letter dated 30.01.2001 stating that the request of the petitioner was not feasible. Hence, the above writ petition. 5. In the counter filed by the respondents/Electricity Board, it is stated that at the request of the petitioner to disconnect the HT supply for a temporary period of three months, ie., from 31.12.1996, the supply was disconnected. Hence, the above writ petition. 5. In the counter filed by the respondents/Electricity Board, it is stated that at the request of the petitioner to disconnect the HT supply for a temporary period of three months, ie., from 31.12.1996, the supply was disconnected. A letter from the petitioner dated 27.01.1997 was received requesting the charging of tariff at the concessional rate. 6. According to the respondents, the petitioner establishment was a well established industrial concern and they ought to know the Electricity Laws and Board's Terms and conditions and the contentions of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The balance amount was paid by the petitioner and, therefore, he was estopped from demanding a refund. The respondents further submit that the petitioner could have immediately requested the respondents to close his accounts. It is further stated that only after the termination of the agreement, the petitioner had come forward to arrange for settlement of the amount. The respondents have acted as per the agreement and Board's terms and conditions and that as per Clause 29.01 of the terms and conditions, the petitioner's request for disconnection of supply was considered and charges were claimed in terms of clause 19.02. The respondents further contend that Clause 13.12 was not admissible to disconnection of the service and the same was applicable only to the live service. After the termination of the agreement period, the petitioner has paid the arrears of Rs.1,38,126/- on 22.05.2000 and the supply was converted into Low Tension supply in the same premises. 7. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior counsel contends that if the Board was satisfied that there were labour problems which prevented the consumer from operating his plant, the consumer was not required to pay the minimum or maximum demand but is required to pay only on the actual recorded consumption. Clause 13.01 will squarely apply to the present case. The demand can be made only in respect of the units actually recorded and not the maximum demand. There was no justification for the respondents to keep the connection alive for over three years. 8. Learned Senior Counsel also took me through the correspondence between both the parties to high light his submissions that the facts clearly disclose that the case is governed by Clause 13.12 and not under Clause 29.01 as contended by the respondents in their counter. 8. Learned Senior Counsel also took me through the correspondence between both the parties to high light his submissions that the facts clearly disclose that the case is governed by Clause 13.12 and not under Clause 29.01 as contended by the respondents in their counter. The communication, requesting for disconnection, itself will disclose that it was a request for disconnection for a temporary period of three months due to reasons beyond their control, on account of labour problems. Learned Senior Counsel also took me through the relevant terms and conditions of the agreement. 9. Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board contends that the appropriate provision governing the situation is only Clause 19.02 and 29.01 and there is no dispute over the fact that the HT Supply in favour of the petitioner was disconnected and hence Clause 13.12 cannot be made applicable. Clause 13.12 was applicable only in respect of live services and lock out and strike and not for the disconnected period. The appeals filed by the petitioner were duly considered by the Chairman of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the Chief Engineer and there was no justification to interfere with the demand raised by the Electricity Board. 10. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. 11. On facts it is clearly shown that what was contemplated by the management was only a disconnection for a temporary period of three months as could be seen from their letter dated 31.12.1996. I perused the letter of the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Board dated 06.01.1998 and it discloses that the service connection was disconnected on 31.12.1996 as per the petitioner's own request and that a period of one year has lapsed on 31.12.1996 and the supply can be re-connected only after payment of Rs.1,91,326/-. From the beginning the petitioner had been taking a consistent stand that the unit remains closed due to only labour problem. From the beginning the petitioner had been taking a consistent stand that the unit remains closed due to only labour problem. Clause 13.12 of the terms and conditions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is as follows: " If the Board is satisfied that the consumer is prevented from receiving or using electricity either in whole or in part owing to total lock-out, total strike, total closure for the time being due to labour problems, riots, insurrections, command of Civil or Military authority or if the Board is prevented from supplying or is unable to supply electricity owing to lock-out or strike of its employees, or force majeure, the consumer will be required to pay, during such periods. (the monthly minimum charges at the rates for maximum demand billing besides charging the actual consumption of electricity are as below: ..." 12. A perusal of the above clause shows that the situation under disconnection was sought for by the petitioner would squarely fall under the said expression namely, 'due to lock out'. The fact that the factory was closed due to lock out is amply demonstrated by the petitioner by producing necessary documents from the authorities disclosing that the factory was under lock out due to labour problem. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that in the light of the facts stated above, it is only clause 13.12 which is applicable and hence, the Electricity Board can raise a demand only as against actual consumption of electricity and not on any notional basis. 13. I am unable to sustain the contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board that Clause 13.12 will not apply. In the counter the respondents have taken the stand that the said Clause was applicable only in respect of live services and not disconnected services. 14. In this case it is true that the service was disconnected. But it was only due to the reason of lock out and for a temporary period. The fact that the petitioner had sought for only temporary disconnection is evident from the letter dated 31.12.1996 in which they have sought for disconnection only for a temporary period of three months. In this case it is true that the service was disconnected. But it was only due to the reason of lock out and for a temporary period. The fact that the petitioner had sought for only temporary disconnection is evident from the letter dated 31.12.1996 in which they have sought for disconnection only for a temporary period of three months. The fact that the disconnection was made only on such request is confirmed by the letter of the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board dated 14.03.1998 in which it is stated that the disconnection was on the request by the petitioner. 15. There is no justification for the respondents Board to invoke Clause 29.01 or 19.02 of the Terms and Conditions of the agreement. Clause 29.01 deals with the request for temporary disconnection on bona fide grounds, such as, seasonal conditions, demolition, remodelling of building or alteration of electrical wiring in the building. While 13.12 deals specifically with the situation of the consumer being prevented from receiving or using the electricity due to lock out or strike, there is no justification for invoking Clause 29.01 which deals general request on ground of seasonal conditions, demolition or remodelling etc. 16. The petitioner has also clearly established that even after the period of three months from 31.12.1996, the factory continued to be under lock out vide G.O.(D) No.574 Labour and Employment Department dated 11.07.1997, the dispute was referred for adjudication and there is no denial of the fact that the factory continued to be under closure as a result of labour dispute. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that there is no justification for the contention on the part of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board and Clause 13.12 does not apply to the facts of the present case. 17. The fact that the petitioner had paid part of the amount in view of a notice from the respondents under protest or even other wise cannot affect the rights of the petitioner to obtain refund on the basis of proper classification. 18. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.