S.K. Verma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was served with an anticipatory bill (annexure 2 to the writ petition) and a demand notice of additional security dated 3.2.1994 (annexure 3 to the writ petition) and through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing both the aforesaid bill and the demand notice. Shorn of the irrelevant, the facts are that earlier the petitioner was paying electricity charges according to the old tariff. Notifications dated 18.1.1992 and 18.5.1992 were issued enhancing the electricity charges and both these notifications were challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23106 of 1992 M/s. Ambika Steel (P) Limited and others v. U.P. State Electricity Board and another, in which orders dated 29.6.1992, 18.9.1992, 23.9.1992 and 19.5.1993 were passed directing the petitioner to pay current electricity charges in accordance with rules prevalent prior to the notification under challenge and prohibiting recovery on the basis of the new tariff. In another connected Writ Petition 22473 of 1992 M/s. Paliwal Steels Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board and others, judgment has been reserved by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble V.N. Khare and Hon'ble M.P. Kenia, JJ. The respondents have, however, served the petitioner with one bill (annexure 1 to the writ petition) at old rates and another anticipatory bill at new rates. The respondents also issued a demand notice dated 3.2.1994 (annexure 3 to the writ petition) regarding additional security. Both these anticipatory bill and demand notice have been sought to be quashed.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that since annexure 2 anticipatory bill relates to electricity charges according to the new tariff which is sub -judice in writ petition No. 23106 of 1992 and writ petition No. 22473 of 1992 aforesaid, no orders can be passed in respect of annexure '2' in this writ petition. However, the petitioner is free to invite the supplier in writing regarding the dispute under the provisions of regulation 19 of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984, if so advised.' So far as the demand notice regarding additional security is concerned, the same has been challenged on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the demand was made and also on the ground that regulation 16 of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984 has been violated. Regulation 16 as per the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires revision of security deposit from time to time to take into account any change in the tariffs but since the new tariff has been challenged in the earlier writ petitions mentioned above by the petitioner and other consumers, it has been argued that the respondents cannot charge additional security. This argument is without force, firstly, because charging of additional security has not been stayed or challenged in those writ petitions. Secondly, the matter has been settled by the apex Court in Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board : A.I.R. 1993 SC 2005. It has been concluded in paragraph 137 of the aforesaid decision that; (1) Section 49 of the Supply Act is valid. (2) The nature of consumption deposit is to secure prompt payment and is intended for appropriation. (3) There is no liability on the Electricity Board either under the statute or common law or equity to pay interest. (4) Conditions and the terms of supply providing for non -payment of interest is not so unconscionable as to shock the conscience of the Court. (5) No reason need be given for enhancement of additional security deposit.
(3.) IN view of the 5th conclusion quoted above, the respondents are not obliged to give reasons for enhancing the security. When no reason need be given for enhancement of additional security deposit, there is no question of giving opportunity for hearing before enhancement of the security. Hence the argument that additional security cannot be demanded without opportunity of hearing has no force.;