CHAIRMAN K E B Vs. GADAG MINING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 5 Writ Appeals by the Karnataka State Electricity Board are against the order in W. P. Nos. 14734/1979 and connected petitions of the learned single Judge holding that the regulations of the Board requiring the consumers to make a security deposit of an amount equal to 3 months' estimated power consumption charges or 3 months' average bill whichever is higher (hereinafter referred to as the 'deposit') with the Board as invalid and issuing a direction to the Board not to collect an amount in excess of two months' estimated power consumption charge or two months' average bill whichever is higher, from the consumers and to refund the excess of amount if already collected.

(2.) The facts of the case have been fully set out in the order of the single Judge. We consider that it is unnecessary to repeat all those facts. In the Writ Petitions, the respondents challenged the validity of Regulation 55 of the Electricity Supply Regulations framed under The Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948 (the Act for short) which required the consumers to make the deposit as also a clause therein which provided that no interest shall be paid on the deposit made by the consumers. The three questions were formulated by the learned single Judge, which read :-

(3.) The first question was answered in the affirmative i.e., against the Writ Petitioners (respondents in the appeal) holding that in view of the language of S. 49 it was competent for the Board to lay down conditions through regulations for the supply of Electric Energy and power to lay down conditions including the power to demand a security deposit from consumers as a condition for supply of Electric Energy. This question is also concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagadamba Paper Industries (P) Ltd. v. Haryana State Electricity Board, reported in AIR 1983 SC 1296.