Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—All these writ petitions raise common issues and have been heard together. Pleadings are complete in Writ Petition No. 38 of 2009, which is treated to be leading writ petition. Counsel for the parties agree that all the writ petitions be finally decided.

2. We have heard Sri B.C. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners in first two writ petitions and Sri Mayank Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners in rest of the writ petitions. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla has been heard for the Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited.

3. The facts of Writ Petition No. 38 of 2009 are to be noted in some detail. The contracted load of the petitioners in the year 2007 was 5650 KVA. The petitioners made an application on 16.11.2007 for sanction and release of additional load of 2700 KVA. An order dated 25th February, 2008 was issued by the respondents sanctioning additional load. The order further required that additional security of Rs. 67,38,050/- is required to be given with regard to which bank guarantee be submitted. The petitioners claim to have protested against the demand of additional security, which has already been stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 53238 of 2006. The petitioner was asked to submit bank guarantee and in the meantime respondent No. 2 stated that he would seek clarification in the matter. The petitioner submitted the bank guarantee on 4th April, 2008. The petitioner subsequently moved an application on 26th May, 2008 for release of the bank guarantee. A writ petition being Writ Petition No. 50353 of 2008 was filed questioning the demand of the bank guarantee, which was disposed of on 24th September, 2008 directing the Executive Engineer to pass appropriate order on the petitioners’ representation in accordance with law. An order dated 17th November, 2008 has been issued by respondent No. 2 deciding the representation refusing to release the bank guarantee. The Executive Engineer has referred to letter dated 6th October, 2008 of State Electricity Regulatory Commission clarifying that in case additional security is not deposited, the same will come within the category of arrear. Reliance was placed on Clause 4.49 of U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition (first writ petition) for following relief :

“(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and to quash the letters/orders dated 6.10.2008 and 17.11.2008 (Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition) issued by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 2.

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari declaring that the Note No. 2 of office memorandum dated 25.2.2008 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) in so far it requires the petitioners to submit bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of additional security already stayed by the Hon’ble Court as totally illegal and to quash the same and the Respondent No. 2 be directed to release the bank guarantee in favour of the petitioners.”

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Corporation reiterating the stand taken in the letter dated 17th November, 2008. It has been submitted that the petitioners themselves have submitted the bank guarantee. Letter dated 6th October, 2008 of State Electricity Regulatory Commission has been referred to. It has been stated that letter dated 25th February, 2008 itself contemplates that if there are any dues on the consumer, the consumer shall submit bank guarantee of equal amount of pending dues. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition. It has been pleaded that Clause 4.49 is applicable in so far as it relates to dues of electricity and it cannot be applied in case of security/additional security.

5. The facts of Writ Petition Nos. 27186 of 2009 as well as 24557 of 2009 are almost similar. In Writ Petition No. 27186 of 2009 letter dated 12th February,