JUDGMENT:

MISRA, J.

Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

The questions raised in these appeals are:

(a) Whether the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) is competent to put an end to the policy decision of the State to supply electricity to the agricultural sector at subsidised uniform flat rate and convert the same into multi different tariff rates discarding the principle of fixation of uniform tariff as contemplated in Section 59 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

(b) Whether the Board is competent to fix tariff as per use of smaller or bigger@@ H.P. motor and whether this fixing has any rational basis@@ which discriminate between one from the other agriculturists.

The present appeals are directed against the orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing appellants writ petitions, holding that the Board decision in fixing different rates based on the capacity of motor is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.

In order to appreciate the controversy we are herein giving short matrix of facts. The appellant is a registered society having farmers in various districts of Andhra Pradesh as its members. According to the case of the appellant, a farmer-consumer of electricity for his agricultural purpose is classified by the respondent-Board as a low tension consumer entitled for a subsidised price in the light of the policy of the State Government. In pursuance to the same, the Board reduced the tariff rates for a very short period, in the light of the assurance given on the Floor of the Assembly in January, 1995 by the then Chief Minister. Accordingly the tariff was reduced to Rs.50/- per H.P. per annum with effect from 1.4.1995 under B.P.Ms. No.110, dated 5.6.1995. Subsequently the Board after consultation with the State revised the impugned tariff. The question raised is, whether revision of this tariff could be justified when it runs counter to the said policy decision of the State, based on the assurance of the Chief Minister and in view of the social and statutory obligation, both on the Board and the State to supply electricity economically towards its subject. The revised new tariff rate through B.P.Ms. No.32, dated 29.7.1996 was:

Tariff rate @@ year

i) Upto 3 H.P. Rs.250/- per H.P. per year

ii) Between 3 H.P. to 5 H.P. Rs .350/- per H.P. per year

iii) From 5 H.P. to 10 H.P. R s.450/- per H.P. per unit

iv) 10 H.P. and above Metered supply @ Rs.0.50 per per of Rs.600/- subject to a minimum H.P. per year.@@

Thereafter on the representation from the farmers this tariff was reduced, first through B.P.Ms. No.35, dated 14.8.1996:

Tariff rate

i) Upto 3 H.P. Rs.200/- per H.P. per year

ii) Between 3 H.P. to 5 H.P. Rs.300/- per H.P. per year

iii) From 5 H.P. to 10 H.P. Rs.400/- per H.P. per@@ year

iv) 10 H.P. and above Rs.500/- per H.P. per year

Finally, came the impugned revised rates as per B.P.Ms. No.40, dated 3.9.1996 which is: Tariff rate DPAP Area Others@@

i) Upto 3 H.P. Rs.100/- per H.P. per yearRs.150/-@@

ii) Between 3 H.P. to 5 H.P. Rs.200/- per H.P. per yearRs.250/-@@

iii) From 5 H.P. to 10 H.P. Rs.300/- per H.P. per yearRs.350/-@@

iv) 10 H.P. and above Rs.400/- per H.P. per yearRs.400/-@@

Before reaching this stage, it is necessary to give some historical background of the imposition of the tariff from the year 1982 till the date of the impugned tariff. The TDP Government headed by Mr. N.T. Rama Rao in exercise of powers under Section 78A of the aforesaid Act, directed the Board, through letter dated 15.12.1982 from the Secretary to the Government of Energy, Environment, Science and Technology Department to revise the electricity tariff for Borewell/Tubewell pumpset to Rs.50/- per H.P. per annum without installation of meters. The relevant portion of the said letter is quoted hereunder:

While agriculturists owning lands under flow irrigation from major projects for both reliable and cheap irrigation, farmers depending on ground-water based irrigation, most of whom are small and margin