A. SAMBASIVA, J.

( 1 ) 1. These ten petitions are of one piece, have been heard together and can be conveniently disposed of by a common orders W. P. No. 1074/73 has peen referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Chennakesav Reddy, J. on the ground that there is an apparent conflict between the decision renderd in W. P. No. 64/73 by Ramachandra Rao, J. and those in W. P. Nos, 534/73 etc. by madhava Reddy, J. in the company of that petition the other nine also have come before us, as all of them raise identical questions.

( 2 ) THE questions relate to the payment of supplementary electricity bills issued by the respondent viz. . The andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board to the petitioners. All of them are consumers of electric energy for non-domestic purposes. The supplementary bills which have been issued to them and are challenged now relate to their business, commercial and other non-domestic establishments. Though the details as to actual amounts demanded vary from case to case the material facts in all of them are similar. We will here notice the salient circumstances which occured in W. P, no. 1074/73. It is alleged : The petitioner has been running a business establishment in Ablds centre in Hyderabad city. He had been connected with electric supply eversince the commencement of his venture. In order to collect charges from him, a meter was installed in his place of business and the respondent and Its predecessors have been issuing bills as per the readings of the meter recording the consumption of energy. In January 1973 the petitioner received a bill dt. 25-1-1973 which is called a supplementary bill demanding from him a sum of Rs. 1,137. 30 ps. for the consumption of electric energy by the petitioner from October 1968 to september 1972. He was allowed time till 24th February 1973 for its payment. It is said that the basis of the supplemental bill is what is called "connected load". The respondent has no power or right to issue supplementary bills, since whatever energy the petitioner has been consuming he had been paying for it as per the meter readings. Some representations were made by some consumers in regard to this illegal demand buc the respondent s officials were threatenlng with disconnection of electric supply. Further, the claim by the respondent is barred by limitation.

( 3 ) THE Deputy Chief Accountant of the Electricity Board filed a counter affidavit. That affidavit states that the board is a statutory corporation and is vested with the responsibility of supply of electricity to the consumers on such terms and conditions as it may choose to fix. In exercis of its powers under Sec. 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the board framed its own terms and conditions of supply. Sec. 59 of the Electricity (supply) Act enjoins upon the Board to carry on its operations in such a manner as would not result in a loss. Consequently, the charges for supply will have to be changed from time to time according to the exigencies and requirements of the situation. Sec. 49 has been held to be constitutionally valid by the supreme Court of India and this Court ruled that the terms and conditions for supply framed under Sec. 49 override the provisions of any agreement entered into by the consumer. The petitioner has been running a "gold ornaments" shop. In exercise of its powers under Sec, 49, the board fixed certain terms and conditions for supply of electricity to consumers and notified them in its proceedings ms. No. 613 dt. 9-7-1968 making It applicable to various consumers availing non-domestic supply from the Board. Besides revising the rates for consumption, certain monthly minimum charges were also fixed as proclaimed the afore said proceedings. The monthly minimum charges fixed are as under. Class of consumer. MONTHLY MINIMUM Connected load of KW and below. CHARGES Above KW and not exceeding 1 KW above 1 KW hotels, Restaurants, eating houses, shops, theatres and Cinemas. Rs. 5/. Rs. 25/- rs. 25/- for every KW or fraction thereof. "

( 4 ) THIS tariff came into effect according to the proceedings from 1-9-1968. Thus, all non-domestic consumers of electric energy are obliged to pay from 1-9-68 monthly minimum charges in addition to the charges for consumption as revised under the proceedings. A test was made by the officers of the respondent of the electrical points in the establishment of the petitioner and a report was prepared by those officials. That report was signed by the consumer. The report says that the petitioner s service is 4,440 KW. As per the minimum rates, the monthly graded minimum charges payable by the petitioner from 1-9-1968 are Rs. 125/- the "petitioner has to pay that minimum charge whether he consumes energy or not. That is how a demand for Rs. 1. 137-30 Ps. representing the minimum charges for the period in question was issued and the petition is liable and bound to pay the same. When the demand for rs, 1,137-30 ps was sent to the petitioner a memo was enclosed there to explaining the position and that is self-explanatory. There was a mistake in the original billing in that the minimum charges was not included and when it was discovered, the respondent rectified the same and Issued the bill, There is no violation of principles of natural justice, because all along, right from the Issuance of the Board s proceedings i. e. . 9-7-1968, all consumers know the revised rates as well as the monthly minimum charges. The petitioner could have asked the respondent for permission to pay the amount by Instalments and could have avoided the disconnection If he so desired. Since the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is purely contractual, the petitioner has adequate alternative remedies and so cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

( 5 ) SRI Krishna Bhagwan presenting the case of the petitioners before us urges three points. The Issuance of supplementary bills and the demands made thereunder are arbitrary. In the first place, there is no power in the respondent to fix the socalled monthly minimum charges which is called the "connected load". Secondly, even the manner of fixation of the minimum rates, supposing that the respondent has power to fix them, is capricious, ungulded and arbitrary. The second principal point is that since no advance notice or opportunity was given to the consumer before the impugned bills were issued, the principles of natural justice were violated. Thirdly, the demand is. In any case, barred by limitation.

( 6 ) BEFORE we deal with those points, it is convenient here to notice the positions taken by Ramachandra Rao, J. In w. P. No. 64/73 in his order dated 15-7-74 and by Madhava Reddy. J. in W. P. . No. 534/73 and batch da ed 22-11-1974. In the two sets of cases which the learned judges decided, the facts and contentions are similar to those advanced before us. Repelling the argument that the expression "connected load" is not defined any where and no guidelines are prescribed for determining it, Ramachandra Rao, J. observed that the Board has undoubted power under Sec. 49 to frame Its own terms and conditions of supply. They override the provisions of any agreement that has been entered Into by the consumers with the Board. The notification of the Board dated 9-7-1968 revising the terms and conditions was Issued in exercise of the power under Sec. 49. The demand through the supplemental bills is based on the tariff rates prescribed in the said notification and represents the difference between the bills already issued and the amount payable as per the new revised rates for the connected load. The connected load with respect to each of the consumers is based on their own statements and on verification of the board s officials. It is not, therefore, possible to say that there were no guidelines for determining the connected load or that the demand made through the supplementary bills on the basis of the connected load is arbitrary. Dealing with the bar of limitation raised by the consumers under Art. 113 of the Limitation act, the learned Judge noticed the contention raised by both sides, but held that he did not propose to express any opinion on that aspect, because the question of limitation is one of fact which has to be decided only after recording evidence and after investigating into various facts. Whether there was mistake or not on the part of the Board and as to when the mistake was discovered are matters which can be gone into in a suit. Further, the demand in respect of each of the petitioners is distinct and separate and all the causes of action for the several petitioners were different and so they cannoc be questioned or decided in a single writ petition. It was also observed that the petitioners, if they are so advised, may seek appropriate remedy in a civil Court. The learned Judge, in that view, dismissed the writ petitions

( 7 ) ON the other hand. Madhava reddy J, held that though the Board Is empowered 10 revise the tariff from time to time, such revision should not be arbitrary; it must have regard to the several factors specified in Sec. 49. Referring to a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Kangunda Industrial works v. A. P. S. E. Board (I) 1969 (I) A. L. T. 328 the learned judge observed that if it is shown that the revision itself is capri- cious or arbitrary, the Court is certainly empowered to declare it as invalid. The new minimum charges are sought to be levied on the basis of the "connected load", but that expression has not been defined anywhere. In the absence of a definition, one will have to understand it as in is understood in common parlance. It is commonly understood by that expression that it is the amount of load which a service connection bears at a given po nt of time and the load itself is calculated on the basis of the actual consumption for an hour under such connection. In the case of the petitioners, the connected load was calculated having regard to the number of light points, fans, wall plugs, power plugs, mercury bulbs and tubes, electric motors and the candle power of the bulbs fixed in the premises. After examining two such fixations the learned judge came to the conclusion that the connected toads determined did not depend entirely on the light points etc, but they varied with the actual power of the bulbs and the appliances and the horse power of the motor actually used. It is quite possible that a consumer may use a 100 or 200 candle power bulb where there was formerly only a 40 candle bulb likewise, on a power plug an electric motor may be used on which formerly an ordinary fan was being worked. So, inspection on a particular d. ay cannot give the correct indication of the actual connected toad in the proceeding month, much less in the proceeding 3 or 4 years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the inspection made in October 1972 could validly form the basis for calculating the charges on the basis of the assumption that it was the connected load from October 1968 to September 1972. Simply because signatures of the consumers were taken on the inspection reports, the position did not change. So, the supplemental bills given en the basis of the connected loads are arbitrary and cannot be sustained further, there is no provision in the law enabling the Board or its officers to fix the connected load with reference to the report made on Inspection on a particular day. The proceedings thus being very vague leave any amount of scope for preference being shown to a particular consumer which is prohibited by Section 49 (4) of the Act, The fixation of a uniform tariff would actually work out in practice as a hardship to one in preference to another. In these circumstances, while the jurisdiction of the Board to vary the power tariff cannot be disputed, it cannot alter the power tariff as to vest an arbitrary authority in its subordinate officers to calculate the connected load. So, the impugned supplemental bills for the previous period issued on the so-called connected load cannot be upheld. In regard to the alternative remedy by way of a reference to arbitration or suit, the learned judge op ned that the Court can exercise its powers under Art. 226 when it finds the action of the Board to be illegal and unjust. In the result, the learned judge quashed the impugned bills. At the same time it was made Clear that the Board will not be precluded from collecting charges due under the agreement as per the revised rates of consumption charges without reference to the connected load but based on the actual consumption charges and minimum charges as revised from time to time. Obviously the question of limitation was not raised before madhava Reddy, J. since he did not express any opinion on if.

( 8 ) WE will now proceed to examine the contentions placed before us. Sri Krishna Bhagwan does not question the validity of Sec 49 of the Electricity (Supp y) Act of 1948, nor does he doubt the powers of the Electricity Board to revise the tariffs for consumption of energy by consumers. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 49 empowers the Board to fix terms and conditions as it thinks fit for the supply of electricity. In the process of supply it is also enabled to frame uniform tariffs. Thus framing of uniform tariffs is part of the power conferred on the board by Sec. 49 (1 ). A Bench of this court consisting of Basi Reddy, A. C. J. and one of us (Sambasiva Rao, j) In Kangunda industrial Works vs. A. P. S. E, board (I) supra held that the Electricity board had ample power under Sec, 49 to revise the tariffs, according to the exigencies and requirements of the situation, like Increase in the cost of production of electricity. Once they are revised. the pre-existing contractual rates have to yield to the revised rates fixed under this satutory power. This decision of the Court has been followed and approved by this court and other Courts time and again. In C. R. P. Nos, 341 and 604 of 73 and batch it was held by Obul reddi, C. J and Lakshmaiah, J. and (on reference) by one of us viz. , Sambasiva rao, J. that the Board has power under sec. 49 to enhance tariff rates despite the existence of an agreement entered into by in with the consumers. It is open to the Board to enhance the tariff rates if in considers necessary after taking all the material circumstances Into consideration. Even these minimum charges will be varied and increased having regard to the considerations stated in Sec. 49 (2 ). Once in is recognised under Sec. 49 that the Board has power to vary the tariffs and fix uniform tariffs, It must necessarily follow that even these uniform tariffs once fixed can be altered in the light of the changed circumstances, but of course with due regard to the factors mentioned in sub-sec. (2) of Sec, 49. Apart from the patent fact that thts position clearly emerges from the language of Sec. 49 itself, decisions of this Court have upheld this position. We may here refer to the decision of Obul Reddy, j. (as he then was) in W. P. No, 4119/69 and batch dated 21-10-70, and the decision of obul Reddy, J. (as he then was) and venkateswara Rao, J. in W. P. No. 2319/69. The power of the Electricity board to call upon the consumer to deposit additional security amount in addition to the already existing deposit was questioned in W. P. No. 2122/71. Chlnnappa Reddy, j. dismissed the writ petition challenging this demand for additional security. Obul Reddy, C. J. and Madhusudan Rao, J. dismissed W. A. No. 346/73 perferred by the consumer against the aforesaid decision of chinnappa Reddy, J, upholding the power of the Board to call for additional security. That is once again on the principle that the Board can vary the terms and conditions for supply of electricity in exercise of its powers under Sec. 49.

( 9 ) FOR the purpose of supply of electric energy the Board is empowered to frame uniform tariffs, in fact, it cannot fix different tariffs for different consumers, since it would be an Impossibility ;n view of the fact there are millions of consumers. That is why special provision is made to fix uniform tariffs. Once again, the uniformity cannot be altogether mechanical and universal. For all consumers of electric energy a uniform rate cannot be fixed. For instance, it is unreasonable to fix a uniform tariff for agricultural consumption and Industrial, likewise it is not possible to fix a uniform tariff for domestic consumption. That is why in sub-sec. (2) the statute lays down guidelines for fixing uniform tariffs. As many as four broad principles are stated in Sub Sec (2) for fixing uniform tariffs. They relate to the nature of the supply and the purposes for which it is required, the requirements of co-ordinated development of the supply and distribution of electricity in the most efficient and economical manner, with particular reference to such development in areas not for the time being served or adequately served by the licensee, the simplification and standardisation of methods and rates of charges for such supplies and the extention and cheapening of electricity to sparsely developed areas. Sub-sec. (4) of Section 49 forbids the Board from showing undue preference to any person. This safeguard is particularly necessary to avoid arbitrariness on the part of the officials of the Board. Sub-Sec. (3), however, makes it clear that nothing in sub-sections (1) and (2) ahall derogate from the power of the Board, If it considers it necessary or expedient, to fix different tariffs for the supply of electricity to any person not being a licensee. But while doing so. regard must be had to geographical position of the area, the nature of the supply and the purpose for which the supply is required and any other relevant factors. Sec. 59 requires the Board to carry on its operations as far as practicable in a manner which does not result in a loss and for that purpose empowers it to adjust its charges accordingly from time to time. These provisions confer wide powers on the Board to fix terms and conditions for the supply as it thinks fit, to fix uniform tariffs and to vary them according to the requirements and exigencies of the situation. At the same time, sufficient guidelines, though framed in a board form, are laid down to guide the Board not only to fixing the uniform tariffs (vide sub-sec (2) of Sec. 491, but also for fixing different tariffs for the supply of electricity (vide Sec. 49 (3) it is in exercise of these powers that the board issued the proceedings dated 9-7-1968 revising the rates for monthly consumption by non-domestic consumers and also fixing for them monthly minimum charges with effect from 1-9-1968.

( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that fixing of the minimum charges is arbitrary. We have already held that the Board has power to fix terms and conditions and uniform tariffs, which necessarily includesthe power to fix monthly minimlum charges. His second criticism is that while fixing these uniform minimum charges, regard has not been given to considerations stated in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 49. We cannot acceed to this contention. The first factor stated in sub-Sec. (2) is the nature of the supply and the purposes for which in is required. The revision and fixation of monthly minimum charges in the proceedings dated 9-7-1968 is for non-domestic consumers. So, it is patent that the nature of the supply and the purpose for which that supply is required was taken Into consideration. Non domestic supply is generally expected to be on a such larger scale than domestic supply. Involving very many ordinary points and power points. If those consumers are not placed in a different category and they are placed in the same class as ordinary domestic consumers, the classification would be very unreasonable. Large scale consumers of non-domestic supply are, therefore, placed, in a distinct category, having regard to the nature of the supply to them and the purposes for which it is required. Further, the factor mentioned in clause (c) of sub-Sec, (2) viz , the simplification and standardisation of methods and rates of charges or such supplies is another important consideration. Non-domestic consumers of electric supply are quite large and unless some sort of simplification and standardisation in fixing tariffs for them Is introduced, it would be difficult and well nigh impossible to have an effective system of estimating their consumption and collecting charges from them. That is why the monthly minimum charges were fixed in the proceedings dated 9-7-1968 for hotels, restaurants, eating houses, shops, theatres and of cinemas in a particular manner which simplifies the whole system. But the Board did not rest content with simplification of the method. It has also taken care to standardise the rates of charges. If the connected load of non-domestic consumer mentioned therein is K. W. and below, the minimum charge is Rs. 5/ -. If it is between k,w. and 1 K. W. it is Rs. 25/- per month. For all connections which are above I K. W. a minimum charge of rs. 25/- for every K. W. or a fraction thereof is leviable, Thus, these rates and the monthly minimum charges are in accordance with the factors mentioned in clauses (a) and (c) of sub-sec. (2 ). The submission of the learned counsel that due regard has not been given to the factors mentioned in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 49 will have to be therefore, rejected.

( 11 ) THEN there is the contention that fixing of the number of K. Ws. , which is the connected load, is arbitrary. As we have noticed above, this contention found favour with Madhava Keddy, J. The learned Judge has held and the same reasoning has been adopted by the learned counsel before us, that the system of fixing the quantum of connected load, in other words the K. Ws, of consumer, is very unscientific and capricious. It is pointed out that a representative of the board goes to the premises of a consumer, counts the ordinary points and power points and on that basis determines the totality of the K. Ws. the consumer is using, That is called conected load, it is on this basis the monthly minimum charge is fixed. It is argued that when the representative of the Board inspects, 200 volts bulb may be used on an ordinary point. Afterwards the consumer may think it necessary to reduce it to 40 or 60 volts. Likewise, there may be change in the manner of the use of the power points as well So, to fix the monthly minimum charge on the so-called connected load system leads to great confusion and leaves scope for aribtrariness and discrimination. We are unable to agree with this rescning. Some sort of rationalisation, simplification and standardisation of the methods and rates of charges for supplies is necessary and that is in fact one of the factors emphasized by the Act. If the Board does not adopt some sort of simplified and standard method, its task of collecting charges from the consumers would be very difficult. It is an admitted fact that the representative of the Board does not fix K. W. power arbitrarily. He goes and inspects the premises, counts all the points and power points and prepares a report in the presence of the consumer or his representative, A report is prepared on which the consumer affixes his signature, thereby giving his approval to the fixation of the totality of K. Ws. that are used in his premises. We do agree that the use of the points and power points may be changed by the consumer according to his requirements, If his con sumption goes up or down according to the use of the points, the charges will be fixed according to the rates fixed in the same proceedings The proceedings of 9-7-1968 fixes the monthly rates of consumption of energy in K. W H. For the first 500 the rate is Rs. 0. 45 ps. per K. W. H. , for the next 500-40 ps. and for the balance above 1000-30ps, So, the increase or reduction in the actual cosumption of power does not act to the detriment of the consumer. He will be charged for the actual consumption according to the rates in the schedule mentioned above. If on the other hand, he introduces more points, both ordinary as well as power points, he can Inform the officers of the Board so that the total K. W. power is changed, thereby changing the estimate of the connected load. Likewise, he will be at liberty to inform the board s officers if there is reduction in points. We fail to see any unreasonableness in this arrangement, or arbltrarinese in estimating the connected load or the totatlty of the K. W. power used by a consumer. So long as there is no intimation from the consumer, the department proceeds on the assumption, until it makes another inspection, that the previously estimated K. W. power was continued. If in an individual case a consumer has given Intimation of change in the K. W. power in his premises and the Board s representatives have not taken any action in pursuance thereof, certainly it will be open for him to take appropriate action in such an eventuality. But for that reason, the very system of fixing the K. W. power i. e. , the connected load power based on a regular inspection to which the consumer himself is a party cannot be called unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary. We are therefore, with due respect, unable to agree with the reasoning of our learned brother Madhava reddy. J. The monthly minimum charges are clearly in accordance with the power conferred on the Board under sec 49 and are fixed having regard to the factors mentioned therein and on a reasonable basis. On this aspect of the matter, we agree with the view expressed by Ramachandra Rao, j. and express our respectful disagreement with view raken by Madhava Reddy. J. in the result, this point falls.

( 12 ) THE next major contention is that the fixation of this connected load and the issuance of the bill calling upon the petitioners to pay the monthly minimum charges due for the proceeding period without any notice is opposed to the principles of natural justice. This point is devoid of merits. The fixation of monthly minimum charges was done as early as on 9-7-1968 when the Board s proceedings were issued. Even then It was declared that in would come into effect from 1-9-1968. When Board s proceedings were thus notified, every consumer of electric power is supposed to know the newly introduced and revised system of charging the consumer. It may be that the Board issued the demand notices after some years; but that cannot mean that the consumer was taken by surprise because he knows, at any rate he is expected to know right from 1-9-1968. that he was liable to pay monthly minimum charges in a particular manner. Further, for every demand notice, it is conceded, a memo was enclosed explaining the demand. Thus, full information as to the demand made was famished to the petitioners and other consumers, As the respondent has stated in its counter, if they are unable to pay the entire amount, the petitioners could aik for instalments. If they still think that the demand is Illegal, they can also file a suit. But there is no basis for questioning the demand on the ground that it is violative of the principles of natural justice and that no notice was given to them. Probably in would also be open to the consumer to bring to the notice of the Board that its estimate of the K. W. power, on the basis of which the supplementary demand was made, was wrong. If there was such a mistake or if there was a subsequent reduction in the K. W, power, then it would certainly be open to the consumer to bring in to the notice of the departmental officials. But the demand itself cannot be struck down as being opposed to the principles of natural justice.

( 13 ) NOW survives the question of limitation, in is argued that the claim, in any event, for more than three years before the date of the demand. is barred by limitation under Art 113 of the Limitation act, because in is a claim for money. On the other hand, Sri Anatha babu, learned counsel for the Board contends that under a mistake the demands have not been issued to the consumers for a considerable length of time and when ic is discovered, they Issued notices. In such cases peroid of limciation starts from the date of the discovery of the mistake. We do not, however, think it possibie or proper to go Into that question in these writ petitions. Whecher there was a mistake, if so when in was found out are all matters which can be decided only on recording evidence. That apart if the petitioners feel that the demand made ugainst them is barred by limitation; they can cetrainly pursue the remedy of suit to avoid the liability. We cannot, therefore, strike down the demand notices and grant the writ sought by the petitioners on the ground of the bar of limitation in exercise of our power under Art. 226.

( 14 ) FOR these reasons, we cannot accept the contentions put forward on behalf of the petitioners. The writ petions are accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100/- in each.