The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.631 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam, has filed the above second appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

.3. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-

.The 1st plaintiff had set up flour mill and obtained electricity service connection bearing No.120 from the defendant Electricity Board; in 1996 the 1st plaintiffs unit was recognized as a tiny unit by the Government of Tamilnadu and certificate to that effect was issued; the tariff to the 1st plaintiffs service connection was classified under Tariff III-A; the second plaintiff started a business of hulling paddy, soapanut power and decorticating of groundnut in October 1998 and the same was recognized as tiny unit and the second plaintiff got the electricity service connection No.193 which was classified under Tariff III-A; while so according to the plaintiffs the defendant without issuing any notice and conducting any enquiry changed the tariff from III-A to tariff III-B and such change in tariff effected by the defendant is against the principles of natural justice and hence filed the suit for declaration and for consequential permanent injunction.

.4. The defendant contested the suit inter alia contending as follows:

.The plaintiffs were allowed to enjoy the said service connection under Tariff III-A; as per G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 31.01.1995, the plaintiffs units were treated as tiny units and therefore classification of the unit was made under tariff III-A but the correct tariff applicable is III-B; the entry in the green card which is in the custody of TNEB and in the white card which is in the custody of the plaintiffs was made on 16.07.1999 and after the tariff was changed the plaintiffs were called upon to pay charges under tariff III-B. The defendant Board is acting only as per the curricular issued by the Government and the proceedings issued by the TNEB; it is contended that previous notice or enquiry is not required for change in the tariff.

5. After framing appropriate issues, the suit was taken up for trial and during trial on the side of the plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the defendant one witness was examined as D.W.1 and Exhibit B1 to B4 were marked. The Trial Court on a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, held that the change of tariff by the defendant has civil consequences and therefore the change of tariff without any notice to the plaintiffs violates the principles of natural justice and accordingly decreed the suit for permanent injunction. Being aggrieved by that the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyattam. The lower appellate court also on an independent consideration of the evidence on record and the reasoning of the trial court agreed with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that the defendant is before this Court in the above second appeal.

6. Heard Mr.N.Muthuswami learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.K.A.Ravindran learned counsel for the respondents.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both the courts below have not properly considered Exs.B1 and B2, the Government orders and the relevant circulars issued by the Government.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the issuance of Exs.A1 and A2 certificates certifying the units run by the plaintiffs as tiny industrial unit alone will not enable the plaintiffs to get their service connection classified under Tariff III-A. The learned counsel further submitted that unless and until the units run by the plaintiffs come under any one of the categories enumerated under Low Tension tariff III-A, the plaintiffs cannot claim to be charged under Tariff III-A. The learned counsel further submitted that