Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- Each of these writ petitions is by a consumer of electric energy which has entered into a contract with the Haryana State Electricity Board (Board for short), and challenge in these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution is to the enhancement of security unilaterally made by the Board bath in respect of meter as also for the payment of the energy dues. Clause 22 of the standard contract stipulates:

"22. Security Deposit :

(a) Before commencing or resuming Supply to a consumer the Board may require the consumer to lodge with the Board as security for the payment by the consumer of his monthly bills and for the value of the meters and/or other apparatus belonging to the Board and installed at the consumers premises a deposit, which may not be transferable, calculated as follows:

Rs. 10.00 per KW of connected load or part thereof in the case of domestic; Rs. 20/- per KW of connected load or part thereof in case of commercial and Rs. 30.00/- per KW of connected load or part thereof in case of industrial/agricultural/bulk supply/street lighting consumers plus the following amount per meter:-

(1) to (3) x x x

(4) For medium industrial supply and bulk supply above 20KW and up to 100 KW. Rs. 100.00/-

(5) For industrial and bulk supply above 100 KW. Rs. 200.00/-

The security is obtainable in cash and an interest at the rate of 4% per annum shall be payable on security deposits of Rs. 50.00 and above. No interest will be payable if a connection is disconnected within a year of giving supply.

(b) The Board will be at liberty at any time to demand further security deposit from consumers who have habitually defaulted in making payments of their monthly dues."

Clause 31 provides:

"31. Rights of Board to revise schedules of tariffs and charges and conditions of supply: Subject to Clause 30 above (relating to interpretation) the Board reserves the right at any time to amend, cancel, or add to, any of these schedules and conditions."

2. Each of the contracts contains detailed provision for security deposit as provided under Clause 22. The Board enhanced the tariff by almost four times but the enhancement of tariff has not been challenged by the consumers, who have filed these writ petitions. Thereafter the Board decided in October 1980 that with effect from April 1, 1981, the security contemplated under Clause 22 both in regard to the meter as also for due payment of the energy bills should be enhanced and fixed a new schedule. Challenge in these petitions is to the enhancement in regard to both the meter as also security for due payment of energy bills made unilaterally by the Board. As this is the common question arising in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

3. The petitioning consumers have contended that the enhancement made in the security amount towards the meter is without any justification. It is all the more so where meters have been installed several years before and there is no change in the circumstances justifying an enhancement in the security deposit for it. Challenge is also advanced against the enhancement of the security deposit in the matter of payment of energy bills. From 1968 the Board had. introduced the condition of taking a security from every consumer to ensure timely clearance of energy bills and in the case of industrial consumers the security was worked out at Rs. 30 per KW. With effect from April 1, 1981, in place of Rs. 30 per KW Rs.- 100/- per KW has been substituted. It is contended that on account of this enhancement most of the petitioning consumers have been called upon to furnish additional security to the tune of several lakhs of rupees. Similarly, in regard to the meter a different basis has been adopted and from April 1, 1981, the security deposit now varies between Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 10 000/- in regard to industrial consumers. After the enhancement came into force the Board through its prescribed officers called upon the petitioning cons