Judgment

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted in special leave petitions.

( 2 ) THESE appeals are preferred against the judgment of a division bench of the Allahabad High court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants. The appellants are large consumers of electricity.

( 3 ) BY a Notification dated 21/4/1990, the Uttar Pradesh State electricity board had revised the electricity rates/tariffs under Section 49 of the electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The notification inter alia provided for payment of interest in case the bill amount is not paid within the specified period. Clause 7 (b) read as follows:"7. (b) For delayed payment.- In the event of any bill of whatever nature it may be not being paid by the due date specified therein, the consumer shall pay an additional charge per day of seven paise per hundred rupees or part thereof on the unpaid amount of the bill for the period by which the payment is delayed, beyond the due date specified in the bill, without prejudice to the right of the Board to disconnect the supply. "

( 4 ) THE validity of the aforesaid notification was questioned in the allahabad High court by way of a writ petition filed by the Eastern U. P. Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Allahabad and certain individual consumers. On the interlocutory application filed in the said writ petition, the High court passed the following order on 25/7/1990:"in this case S/shri Sudhir Agarwal and S. C. Budhwar have filed appearance on behalf of the respondents. They pray for and are granted two weeks time for filing a rejoinder-affidavit. List this petition for disposal, if possible at the admission stage, on 16/8/1990. This is 775 necessary in view of recurrence of this matter in large number of cases and revenue in large scale being affected for electricity charges. Meanwhile till 23/8/1990 unless recalled earlier, the operation of the notification dated 21/4/1990 shall remain stayed. The respondents are restrained from realising the additional amount of electricity charges from petitioners in pursuance of the said notification. However, the petitioners shall continue to pay at the old rate. " (emphasis added)THE said order was continued by subsequent orders dated 30/8/1990 and 7/9/1990.

( 5 ) IT appears that besides the above writ petition, several other writ petitions were filed questioning the aforesaid notification. In every writ petition, there was an interlocutory application praying for stay of operation of the said notification but there does not appear to be any uniformity in the interim orders made by the High court in those writ petitions. For example, in Writ Petition No. 30097 of 1990 filed by the Employers Association of northern India, the interim order was to the following effect:meanwhile effect shall not be given to the Notification dated 2 1/04/1990 as against the petitioners. However, it is made clear that in the event of failure of the writ petition the petitioners shall deposit with the relevant authority within a period of one month from the date of dismissal of the writ petition the difference between the amount of electricity dues, which will be paid hereinafter by the petitioners under our order and the sum which may be calculated on the basis of the impugned notification. " (emphasis added)

( 6 ) ALL the said writ petitions challenging the said notification were ultimately dismissed by a division bench on 1/3/1993.

( 7 ) FROM this stage onwards, we will refer to the facts and contentions in Civil arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6588 of 1990 (preferred by M/s Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Limited), as representative of the facts and contentions in all the matters being disposed of under this judgment. Though the individual facts vary, the questions arising in these appeals are common.

( 8 ) AFTER the dismissal of the writ petitions on 1/3/1993 as aforesaid, Kanoria says, it deposited the difference amount between pre-revised and the revised electricity rates. It did n