- (1.) This judgment will dispose of the aforesaid seven second appeals as they involve common questions of law for consideration as urged by the learned counsel for the defendant- appellant.
(2.) In brief, the facts stated are that Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short, "the Board") appellant-defendant issued notice to its consumers like the plaintiffs-respondents in these appeals stipulating therein that in view of the provisions contained in Clause 20(f) of the General Conditions of Supply and Clause (b) of Part II of the Schedule of Conditions of Supply, the security amount has been revised on the basis of average of three months' consumption of electricity supply for the year 1979-80 and thereby the plaintiffs were directed to deposit additional security by way of cash as well as bank guarantee for the amounts stated in the notice. Against the issuance of the aforesaid notice, the plaintiffs presented civil suits for declaration and permanent injunction. The suits were contested by the defendant- appellant-Board. On the basis of the pleadings the issues were framed and the evidence was led on behalf of both the parties. The learned trial Court in all the civil suits of the plaintiffs-respondents relying upon the decision of this Court in M/s. Alpha Alloy Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. R.S.E.B., 1987 (1) RLR 362 : (AIR 1987 Raj 131), issued declaratory injunction to the extent that the demand of security be made on the basis of average of twelve months consumption of electricity supply to the consumers instead of three months' average and that the plaintiff's electricity supply connection be not disconnected on the basis of the impugned notice of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short, "the Board") security amount on the basis of average of three months' consumption. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant-Board preferred appeal before the first appellate Court, which dismissed the same. Hence these second appeals.
(3.) In all these second appeals, this Court issued show cause notices to the respondents on the following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether the appellant is competent under the law to demand security on the basis of maximum consumption of three months of the preceding year? (2) Whether on account of retention of money by way of security the Board is liable to pay interest by way of compensation for the use of the money deposited by the consumer and if so at what rate? and (3) Whether the appellant is competent to revise the security already deposited by the consumer under the provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948?;