( 1 ) A common question of law and facts is involved in all these petitions and therefore all the petitions are considered together and decided by this common judgement.

( 2 ) THE petitioners herein are consumers of Gujarat Electricity Board. They are High Tension Consumers and they have been charged on the basis of tariff applicable to them as HT consumers. 2. 1 according to the petitioners, the respondent Board issued exhorbitant supplementary bills to the petitioners being differential amount due to revision of tariff on account of change of classification from HTP-I to HTP-II (A ). The petitioners were also informed that although original connection was released under HTP-I category, considering the activities carried out by the petitioners in their units, their units would fall under HTP-II (A) category. It appears that the new tariff was introduced with effect from 10. 10. 2000 and the special bill has been calculated on the basis of new tariff. Therefore, the petitioners herein have challenged the special bills issued to them, the action of arbitrarily changing the classification from HTP-I to HTP-II (A) and the demand of new tariff with retrospective effect.

( 3 ) MR. G. N. Shah, learned counsel for some of the petitioners advanced the following arguments:3. 1 the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was brought into force by Central Government Notification dated 10th June 2003. Section 172 (d) of the said Act authorizes a State Government to declare that the said Act shall not apply in the State for such period not exceeding six months from the appointed day i. e. 10th June 2003. The Gujarat Government, by its notification dated 4th July 2003, declared that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to the State for a period of six months and therefore the provisions of the Act became applicable in the State of Gujarat from 10th June 2003. By separate notification dated 10th June 2004 the State Government authorized the respondent Board to continue to function as a licensee for a further period of six months from 9th June 2004. He submitted that under section 172 (a), the Board has to function from 10th December 2003 as a licensee in accordance with the provisions of 2003 Act because under the proviso to section 172 it is merely the extension of the period for the Board to continue as a licensee. The proviso does not exempt the Board from the provisions of the Act which became applicable to the State on 10th December 2003. In that view of the matter from 10th December 2003 the provisions and the limitation from the date from which the demand is made by the Board of two years contained in section 56 of the Act became applicable to the respondent Board. 3. 2 section 56 provides that if a person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity, then 15 clear days notice has to be given and only thereafter the supply of electricity could be disconnected. As far as the present case is concerned, the amount claimed by the respondent Board is for differential amount in respect of electricity charge supplied from October 2000 to October 2003. The demand notice is issued in the year 2004. The petitioners have been making payment of regular electricity bill. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the petitioners is that Section 56 cannot be invoked for disconnection of electricity after 10. 12. 2003 as the limitation of 2 years applies in the present case to GEB. 3. 3 the counsel for the petitioners submitted that an agreement has been signed between the petitioners and the Board after 3. 3. 1989 after the Boards Resolution dated 3. 3. 1989 of HPC on 3. 3. 1989 for the supply of electricity of 150 KVA (contract demand ). This contract has been implemented by the Board and the petitioners, without any dispute, have paid all the charges to GEB as per their bills for the amounts charged. He further submitted that the respondent Board had never contende