A legal fiction created by a statute must be given full effect to, including the consequences and incidents that would inevitably flow from that fiction.

S. B. Sinha, J.

This application is directed against the order dated 31.10.1990 issued by respondent no.4 and as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application whereby and where under the petitioner has been Bihar State Elect. Board directed to deposit additional security amount of Rs. 2,09,550/-.

2. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute.

3. The petitioner is a consumer of electrical energy. It for the purpose of consumption of electrical energy in its factory exccuted an agreement in 1974 for supply of 373.2 KVA. It appears that the petitioner deposited the initial security money amounting to Rs. 28000/-while entering into the aforementioned agreement. Later on, the petitioner applied for reduction of the load, which was agreed upon by the Board and it was reduced to 286 KVA.

4. Admittedly high tension electrical energy is supplied to the petitioner - factory directly from a Transformer. For the purpose of recording the consumption of electrical energy, a meter as well as a Maximum Demand Indicator has been installed in the premises of the petitioner. In the month of November, 1989 the Maximum Demand Indicator had shown the consumption of energy by the petitioner to the extent of 369 KVA. Respondent- Board therefore issued a bill to the petitioner on the basis of 369 KVA as recorded in the Maximum Demand Indicator. The petitioner objected to the correctness of the said reading.

5. It is now accepted in the counter affidavit that the Maximum Demand Indicator was found to he wrong being fast by 9.9%. However, as noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner was served with a bill on the basis of 369 KVA.

6. By a letter dated 30th of March, 1990 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application, the petitioner was directed to deposit further security amount of Rs. 70,400/-. The petitioner was also directed to execute a supplementary agreement for the additional load of 83 KVA raising the contract demand from 286 KVA to 369 KVA. By reason of the impugned order dated 31.10.1990, the petitioner was reminded by Bihar State Electricity Board about thcir earlier letters dated 10.2.1990 and 31.3.90 and it was contended that as the actual load was 369 KVA which being more than 10% of the contract demand, the petitioner was again requested to execute a supplementary agreement upon depositing necessary security amount,' details whereof has been given herein which reads as follows :

7. Mr. R. K. Marathia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has principally raised two contentions in support of this application.

Learned counsel firstly submitted that the matter relating to the validity of the imposition of additional security is pending consideration before the Supreme Court of India and the order of the Supreme Court of India dated 13th August, 1987 has been annexed to the writ application and marked as Annexure-6.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that additional security could only be demanded in terms of clause 15.3(c) of the Tariff framed by the Board in exercise of its power conferred upon it under section 46 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. According to the learned counsel, in terms of clause 15 of the aforementioned Tariff, an additional security should be demanded only when one or the other conditions mentioned in clause 15.3(c) of the Tariff is fulfilled.

9. Mr. B.S. Lal learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board, on the other hand submitted that there is nothing to show as to on what basis the additional security was demanded in the case which is pending before the Supreme Court of India and an interim order has been passed which is contained In Annexure-6 to the writ application.

10. Learned counsel submitted that in this case in view of clause 16.5 of the Tariff, the petitioner is bound to enter il1to a fresh agreement for supply of electrical energy to the extent of 369 KVA and in that view of the matter further security demanded from the petitioner is not by way of additional security, but, in fact, b