The classification of consumers for tariff purposes based on the purpose of supply of electricity is valid and falls within the scope of Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is a Private Limited Company owning what is described as a Textile Mill at Dewas. The petitioner claims to be manufacturing 'man-made fabrics' in this mill. Annexure-C is an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the M. P. Electricity Board for supply of high tension electrical energy in bulk for purposes of the mill. Tariff was initially governed by notification dated 1-5-1995 (Annexure-D) and tariff for category (I-D) (consumers other than those covered under I-A, I-B and I-C was applicable to the petitioner. Tariff was revised by notification dated 1-6-1986 (Annexure-E) bringing in a new category of "textile mills" as (I-D) and making (I-E) a residuary category. The petitioner claims that its mill is a textile mill coming in the cagegory (I-D ). Vide notification dated 29-11-1986, the earlier notification dated 1-6-1986 was amended retrospectively with effect from 1-6-1986 adding a clause regarding applicability of (I-D ). The new clause states that tariff of (I-D) shall apply to only such of the consumer who avail supply for manufacture of cloths whether cotton or nylon or polyester or any of the combination of cotton, nylon or polyester. The industries engaged in ginning and or spinning and / or processing of cloth and manufacture of HD / PP sacs etc. shall not be entitled for this tariff. Thus, the petitioner's mill would continue to be under the residuary category (I-E ). Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the last notification, particularly in view of the notice issued by the Board threatening discontinuance of supply unless tariff is paid at the rate shown in the last notification.

( 2 ) THE first contention is that the notice of discontinuance of supply violates S. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. This provision requires not less than seven clear days notice in writing for discontinuance. It is contended that such notice is not given. This contention is not correct. Annexure-A notice dated 31-3-1987 indicates the arrears of charges due as per bill dated 3-3-1987 and states that if it is not paid within seven days from the date of receipt of notice, supply of electricity on the expiry of the seven days will be discontinued. Notice is according to the statutory provision and is valid.

( 3 ) IT is next contended that the notification dated 29-11-1986 is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and the classification sought to be made therein is beyond the scope of S. 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has no contention that the notification dated 1-5-1985 and notification dated 1-6-1986 are vitiated by any constitutional or legal infirmity. Notification dated 1-5-1985 prescribed different tariffs for the following class of industries: (I-A) Coal Mines (I-B) Cement Industries (I-C) Mini-Steel Plants (I-D) Consumers other than those covered I-A, I-B and I-C. The notification dated 1-6-1986 made the following classification : (I-A) Coal Mines; (I-B) Cement Factories; (I-C) Mini-Steel Plants; (I-D) Textile Mills; (I-E) Consumers other than those covered in I-A, I-B, I-C and I-D. By this notification, textile mills were taken out of residuary category in the original (I-D) and retained as category (I-D ). I-E became residuary category. The petitioner contends that the mill owned by it is a textile mill entitled to the concessional tariff prescribed under notification dated 1-6-1986 arid this concessional tariff is sought to be taken away by the impugned notification which makes it clear that the tariff relating to textile mill would be available only where energy is supplied for manufacture of cloth whether cotton or nylon or polyester or any of the combination of cotton, nylon or polyester, and industries engaged in ginning and / or spinning and / or processing of cloth of HD / PP Sacs etc. shall not be entitled for the tariff. ( 5 ) THERE was an attempt made by the petitioner to contend that cloth