Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. The controversy in the present writ petition relates to the question as to whether the Tea Manufacturing Unit of the petitioner without a garden/plantation is to be included within Category 8 or Category 6 of the 1994 Schedule of Tariff framed by the A.S.E.B. under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The aforesaid formulation with regard to the scope of the writ petition has been made by the Court having regard to the specific reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. Though a valiant attempt has been made on behalf of the petitioner to extend the horizons of the writ petition to cover the entitlement of the petitioner for the categorisation under the subsequent Schedule of Tariffs, this Court is of the view that having regard to the prayers made, the scope and ambit of the writ petition should not be extended to the areas as contended by the writ petitioner.

2. The point formulated above, will have to be reconciled on the basis of the language used by the Board while framing Category 8 of the 1994 Schedule of Tariff. Categorisation of consumers of electricity for the purpose of payment of tariff has been broadly made on the basis of the use to