Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale, C.J.—This bunch of writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge demand notices issued by Distribution Companies, through its Executive Engineers, whereby the petitioners are directed to/required to deposit additional security for supply of electricity, with the warning that if the payment of security is not made within the stipulated time, appropriate action would be taken in accordance with law. The petitions also challenge the provisions contained in clause (l) of Para 4.20 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 (for short, ‘Supply Code, 2005’) insofar as it provides ‘as and when a distribution licensee provides a choice to consumer to opt’ being ultra vires the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 47 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘Act, 2003’). It appears that in most of the writ petitions, this Court has granted interim orders in favour of the petitioners. Since the questions raised in the writ petitions are similar, the entire bunch of petitions is being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In order to understand, appreciate and consider the controversy, it would be appropriate to state the facts in Writ Petition No. 30898 of 2016, to the extent they are necessary for our purpose. The petitioner - company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is an industrial unit, engaged in the manufacture of craft paper, mill-board, grey board, duplex board, copying and packaging paper. It is a consumer within the meaning of clause (15) of Section 2 of the Act, 2003, which draws electricity from respondent No. 3 - Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, a State Power Distribution Company. The petitioners in all writ petitions consume high volume of electricity and are classified as High Tension (for short, ‘HT’) consumers. The petitioner - company got an electricity connection for which they had deposited a sum of Rs. 53,28,300/- towards security. According to petitioner, respondent No. 4 - Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division, of respondent No. 3 - State Power Distribution Company, in purported exercise of the powers under circular dated 7.3.1994 and the Supply Code, 2005, issued a demand notice dated 9.6.2016, for the financial year 2015-16, to pay a total security amount of Rs. 87,40,891. After adjusting the amount that was already paid, the petitioner was directed to pay the difference of the amount, i.e. Rs. 34,12,597/-. Such demand notices forced all the petitioners-HT consumers, to file writ petitions not only challenging the demand notices but also the provisions of clause (l) of Para 4.20 of the Supply Code, 2005 being ultra vires the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 47 of the Act, 2003.

3. The petitioner claims, as provided for under Section 47(5) of Act, 2003, that it has already informed the respondent No. 4 - Executive Engineer to install prepaid meters vide letter dated 21.4.2016 and in view thereof, no security, as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 47, is liable to be paid. On this ground alone, the impugned demand according to the petitioner is illegal. The petitioners have not challenged their liability to deposit security as such and what they have challenged is the impugned demand for additional security for supply of electricity. Similar are the facts and circumstances against which the petitioners in all other writ petitions have approached this Court, raising similar challenge after having received demand notices issued by the respective State Power Distribution Companies, and for uninterrupted electrical energy being supplied to them without providing prepaid meters under Section 47 (5) of the Act, 2003.

4. The provisions of clause (l) of Para 4.20 of the Supply Code, 2005, which is under challenge, provides that a distribution licensee shall not be entitled to require security in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Act, 2003, if the person requiring the supply is prepared to ta