M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Appellants/Respondents have preferred the instant W.A. (MD) No. 891 of 2017 as against the order dated 22.03.2017 in W.P. (MD) No. 16295 of 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge. The Appellants/Respondents have filed the present W.A. (MD) No. 892 of 2017 as against the order dated 22.03.2017 in W.P. (MD) No. 4831 of 2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

2. Earlier, this Court, while passing the common order in W.P. (MD) No. 16295 of 2012 dated 22.03.2017, wherein, in paragraph No. 12, it is observed as under:

“12. The clarificatory order has been produced before me. It does not restrict its operation with regard to the period. Being a clarificatory order it can only be retrospective unless it is made expressly prospective. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is basically an agriculturist and even assuming that the petitioner was doing fish culture he was doing it as an allied activity along with agriculture. Therefore, the clarificatory order issued by the Regulatory Commission dated 24.12.2012 would apply to the petitioner. Thus, it is seen that there can be no charge of theft of energy or different user in so far as the impugned demand is concerned and allowed the writ petition.”

3. Likewise, this Court, while passing the common order in W.P. (MD) No. 4831 of 2014 dated 22.03.2017, wherein in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16, it is observed as under:

“15. The petitioner seeks issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 19.01.2013 in and by which the Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Papanasam has rejected the request of the petitioner for new service connection for the Temple constructed inside the premises of the polytechnic run by the petitioner. The said rejection order is passed on the fact that certain amounts remained unpaid by the petitioner in respect of two service connections namely S.C. No. 96/V and S.C. No. 136 (Agriculture).

16. Today the Writ Petitions challenging the demand made for the said two service connections have been allowed in W.P. (MD) No. 3903 and 16295 of 2010 and the said demands have been quashed. Therefore, reason for rejection of a new service connection to the petitioner does not survive. Hence the order impugned in this writ petition dated 19.01.2013 is quashed. The respondent is directed to provide a new service connection to the temple constructed by the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 4831 of 2014 is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Board submits that on 21.12.2009, the theft of energy was detected in service connection S.C. No. 432-002-136 and that the said agricultural service is a free connection granted under Tariff IV. Further, it is represented on behalf of the Appellants that the Respondent/Writ Petitioner had used the free agriculture service connection for fish pond and there are three fish ponds with 80 x 40 meter and had fixed PVC pipes on the ground to take water to three ponds.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants strenuously contends that since the theft was detected on 21.12.2009, the Tariff Order applicable is Tariff Order 1 of 2002 with effect from 16.03.2003. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants refers to the said Tariff Order under:

10.0 Low Tension Tariff IV - wherein it was mentioned under Clause (vii) as under:

“If it is established that the water pumped from such services under this category is used for purposes other than agriculture or sold to others, the service category shall be changed to LT Tariff V.”

6. Advancing her arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants projects an argument that in the Tariff Order No. 1/2002, there is no such category as fish farming at all and Tariff III A and B are not applicable to agriculture at all and that apart, the Tariff Order 1 was passed in the year 2012 and under Tari