The Electricity Board has the power to demand additional security deposit from consumers and to disconnect the supply in case of default in payment of such deposit.

D. RAJU, J.

The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 10-12-1990 in W.P. No. 6624 of 1986, whereunder the learned Judge thought fit that the orders dated 29-6-1984 and 31-1-1986 passed by the Electricity Board are liable to be and also were actually quashed. The proceedings dated 29-6-1984 is the one wherein the Superintending Engineer, Ramnad Electricity System, Madurai, called upon the writ petitioner-respondent to make additional security deposit of Rs. 30,000/- within the 30 days from the date of receipt of the said communication purporting to act so on the basis of the proceedings of the Electricity Board in .B.P. Ms. FS) No. 3 (Accounts Branch) dated 26-3-1984. Similarly, the proceedings dated 31-1-1986 is the one under which the Member/Distribution of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board informed the writ petitioner with reference to his letter dated 24-8-1985 that the service remains disconnected from 1/85 onwards and monthly charges levied also remains unpaid and if the writ petitioner-respondent fails to resume supply on payment of arrears and the additional security deposit immediately, the lines would be dismantled without prejudice to the rights of the Board.

2. The sum and substance of the factual details are not in serious controversy, except with reference to the correctness of some of the dates. It is seen from the materials placed before us that the writ petitioner-respondent was given H.T. supply for sanctioned demand of 500 KVA on 13-1-1982. At that time, as per the then existing rates of security deposit in respect of the class or category of consumers, the security deposit was fixed at Rs. 30,000- and collected from the writ petitioner. Subsequently, taking advantage of the Board's proceedings dated 26-3-1984 noticed supra, the impugned demand in respect of the additional security deposit of Rs. 30,000/- came to be made in accordance with the revised rates of security deposit within the time stipulated therefor. The writ petitioner, no doubt, was appraised of the fact that the non-payment of the additional security deposit would result in disconnection of the supply. The fact remains and it is not in controversy that the writ petitioner committed default in the payment of consumption charges for the month of November, 1984, which appears to have been actually remitted on 17-1-1985, though the writ petitioner would claim that such remittance was on 10-1-1985. The service connection was disconnected indisputably on 26-12-1984. Though the writ petitioner would contend that it was in the context of non-payment of additional security deposit, the Board would contend that it was not only for the non-payment of additional security deposit, but also for the non-payment of current consumption charges for the month of November, 1984. The further factual position which requires to be noticed is that the writ petitioner who availed the supply of electricity up to the date of disconnection on 26-12-1984, in the month of December, 1984 did not pay the bill for consumption charges for December, 1984 also and as a matter of fact, the consumption charges for the month of December came to be paid only on 16-12-1985. The inevitable consequence of the disconnection and the lapse on the part of the writ petitioner in getting the supply restored forthwith was the liability to pay monthly minimum charges. It is at this stage, the writ petitioner appears to have made representation to the Member, Electricity Board. The petitioner was, by the communication dated 31-1-1986 informed that if the payment of arrears and also additional security deposit was not effected immediately and supply availed of, the lines will be dismantled. It may also be noticed at this stage that prior to the disconnection of supply on 26-12-1984, the Superintending Engineer also issued a communication dated 14-12-1984 inviting the attention of the writ petitioner to the default in the payment