A.K. MATHUR, J.—All the writ petitions involve similar questions of law as such they are disposed of by a common order. The list of cases is appended here with and marked as Schedule A.

2. For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3357 of 1984 M/s Alpha Alloy Steels Pvt. Ltd. are taken into consideration.

3. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the notice issued for enhanced security by respondent No. 2 vide Ex.1 may be quashed and clause (b) under the head Security Deposits in Part II of the Conditions known as the General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Miscellaneous Charges Relating to the Supply of Electricity (1964) (hereinafter referred to as, the General Conditions of 1964) may be struck down. It has further been prayed that sub clause 2 in the Note under the head Security Deposit in Part II of the General Conditions of 1964 which provides that no interest will be paid by the Board on the security may also be struck down. Lastly, it has been prayed that the Board may be restrained from recovering the enhanced security deposits from the petitioners.

4. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter called as the Board) for the supply of electricity through High tension lines. An agreement to this effect was executed. The Board framed the General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Miscellaneous Charges relating to supply of Electricity 1964. According to these General Conditions of 1964 the consumers are required to deposit security for securing payments of future bills for the supply of electric energy. Respondent No. 2 issued notices to the consumers calling upon them to deposit enhanced cash security as well as Bank Guarantee. This was issued vide Ex.1. The petitioner protested against this enhancement of security deposit and approached all the authorities. The petitioner submitted a representation on 9-11-1984 and agreed to deposit the enhanced cash security and Bank Guarantee provided the same are calculated on the basis of average monthly consumption. The petitioner also requested the respondents to adjust the amount against refund of Rs. 10,450/- due to it. But the respondents declined to accept the suggestion of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was driven to file the present writ petition.

5. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners placed three submissions for my consideration. So far as the power of the Board to enhance the security deposit is concerned, the same has not been disputed because of the reason that such power of the Board has been affirmed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s Jagdamha Paper Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Haryana State Electricity Board (1). But the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are entitled to interest on security deposits at the rates admissible on fixed deposits by Scheduled Banks. Secondly, it was submitted that the calculation which has been made of taking three months highest consumption of the last year is not the correct criteria for enhancing the security deposit. Learned counsel also submitted that this enhanced security deposit is not applicable to High tension lines. He further submitted that the notice has been issued by the respondent No. 2 who is not authorised to do so.

6. A return has been filed on behalf of the respondents and the respondents have taken the position that in terms of the General Conditions of 1964 they are entitled to enhance the security deposit and these conditions have been framed by the Board and thereafter the A.E.N, has issued Ex.1 in pursuance of the Boards resolution. This has been stated by filing an affidavit of the Ex. En.. R.S.E.B., Jodhpur. It has further been submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any interest as they have been asked to give one months cash security deposit and two months bank guarantee (but in later cases the Board has demanded two months

Click Here to Read the rest of this document