- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. By this petition petitioner has challenged the Notifi cation date January 1st, 1992 issued by the U. P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) fixing tariff under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 for various types of consumers.
(2.) INITIALLY petitioner by his writ petition challenged the order dated 18-1-1992 only but by an amendment application dated 10-8-1992 he has prayed for adding relied so as to enable him to challenge the Notifications dated 18-5-1992 and 29-5-1992 by which the earlier notification dated 18-1- 1992 was amended partially. We have allowed this application permi tting the petitioner to incorporate ground and the prayer made therein in the writ petition at the relevant places today. Petitioner has filed another application today seeking permission to file supplementary affidavit copy of which was served on the learned counsel for the respondents on 17-5-1993. We have allowed this application also and have placed the supplementary affidavit on the record. At the outset we may mention that the validity of the two impugned Notifications dated 18-1-1992 and 18-5-1992 has already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Sarvodaya Ispat Pvt. Ltd. , Ghaziabad v. U. P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow and others, 1993 (1) Civil and Revenue Cases 658. The above decision has been followed in other cases also by this Court while rejecting similar writ petitions, Learned counsel for the petitioner has however made three conten tions in support of this writ petition namely: (1) In view of Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act and the Proviso (a) to Clause VI of the Schedule appended thereto, the Board cannot charge minimum consumption guarantee charges excee ding 15% of the cost of service lie required to comply with the requisition. (2) There is discrimination between one consumer and another who are governed by the same rate schedule HV I of the aforesaid notification with regard to payment of minimum consumption guarantee, (3) There is also discrimination between consumers belonging to two rates schedule of HV I and HV II. . "
(3.) ALL three contentions are devoid of merits and have to be rejected. In view of the Section 26 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, which is reproduced below, Section 22 of Electricity Act is not applicable to the Board: "26. Board to have powers and obligations of licensee under Act 9 of 1910.-Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board shall, in respect of the whole State, have all the powers and obligation of a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and this Act shall be deemed to be the licence of the Board for the purposes of that Act: Provided that nothing in Sections 3 to 11, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 21 and Section 22, sub- section (2) of Section 22-A and Sections 23 and 27 of that Act or in clauses I to V, clause VII and clauses IX to XII of the Schedule to that Act relating to the duties and obligations of a licensee shall apply to the Board : Provided that the provisions of clause VI of the Schedule to that Act shall apply to the Board in respect of that area only where distribution mains have been laid by the Board and the supply of energy through and of them has commenced. ";