RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THESE writ appeals are filed by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') against the common Judgment of the Learned Single Judge in Writ petition No. 34141 of 1981 and connected Writ Petitions. ( 2 ) IN the Writ Petitions, the petitioners, who are non-domestic consumers of water supplied by the Board in the City of Bangalore, questioned the validity of Regulation 7-A introduced into the bangalore Water Supply Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') by an amendment made on 1st November, 1981. By the said amendment, every non-domestic consumer was required to make a deposit of an amount equal to six times the average monthly charges with the Board. The contention of the petitioners was that Regulation 7-A was ultra vires the power conferred on the Board under the provisions of the Act. The Learned Judge accepted the contention of the petitioners and declared the regulation invalid. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that the Regulation was within the powers of board conferred under Section 31 of the Act. He submitted that the wording of the said provision was similar to that of Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act and that the Supreme Court in the case of Jagadamba Paper Industries (Pvt. ). Ltd. v. Haryana State Electricity Board, AIR1983 SC 1296 , 1983 (2 )SCALE1008 , (1983 )4 SCC508 , [1984 ]1 scr165 , 1984 (16 )UJ126 (SC ) had held that under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, the Electricity Board concerned had the power to make regulation requiring the consumers to make deposits of a reasonable amount for the purpose of ensuring the payment of the bills, and, in view of the ratio of the said decision, it must be held that the Board has got similar powers under Section 31 of the Act and the validity of Regulation 7-A should be upheld. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to set out the relevant part of Section 31 of the Act. It reads : 31. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to set out the relevant part of Section 31 of the Act. It reads : 31. Payment to be made for water supplied : Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 127 or any law, contract or other instrument, for all water supplied under this Act, payment shall be made at such rates at such times and under such conditions as may be specified by regulations and differentiates may be prescribed for supply of water for different purposes. " (Underlining by me) the above provision confers the following powers on the Board : (i) To fix the rates for the supply of water and in doing so fix different rates for different types of consumers' (ii) The periodicity for payment of charges; and (iii) To impose conditions for supply of water, through Regulations. ( 5 ) IN these proceedings there is no dispute about the rates fixed by the Board. It is also not in dispute that the Board has fixed different rates for domestic and non-domestic consumers and the rate fixed for the latter category, to which the respondents belong, is higher than the rate fixed for the former. This had been done by framing regulations in exercise of the power conferred on the Board under Section 61 of the Regulations. The said regulations, inter alia, provide for giving connection to domestic and non-domestic consumers, fixing of meters, provision for meter reading, preparing of bills and the rates to be charged to the consumers and the provision for payment of bills by the consumers. Regulation which provides for the making of an application for water connection reads as follows : "7. Every such application for a water connection shall be accompanied by a deposit of Rs. 20/to serve as an advance, the actual amount being determined by the Water Supply Engineer, in each case, in addition to the cost of attachment, read boxes and matter boxes. The depoeit of Rs. 20/- shall be refunded to the depositor on demand after he settles his account and ceases to be a consumer. Such deposits shall be made in the case of existing connections also where deposits have not been made so far. The applicant shall also pay in advance, the cost of laying the communication pipe after receipt of intimation from the Water Supply Engineer. Such deposits shall be made in the case of existing connections also where deposits have not been made so far. The applicant shall also pay in advance, the cost of laying the communication pipe after receipt of intimation from the Water Supply Engineer. " according to the above regulation, every consumer was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 20/along with the application. After securing the supply of water every consumer was required to pay the water charges every month after the Bill was prepared and handed over to the consumer. Regulation 7a was added by an amendment made to the Regulations on 1st November, 1981. It reads : "ia. Every water connection shall stand covered by a minimum deposit as follows : domestic connections: Three times average monthly charge. Non-domestic connections : Six times average monthly charge. Corporation of the City of Bangalore : Three times average monthly charge. Note : The average monthly charge will be the average of charges of the preceding six months or the period (months) for which connection is subsisting, if the connection is not over six months old " A reading of both these regulations indicate that originally when the Regulations were made in the year 1965, the Board considered that requiring a consumer to make a deposit of Rs. 20/- as advance was sufficient but by Regulation 7a it provided that every connection shall stand covered by a minimum deposit as provided in the Regulations. According to Regulation 7a every domestic consumer is required to make an additional deposit of three times the average monthly charges and every non-domestic consumer is required to deposit six times the average monthly charges as minimum deposit as a condition for the supply of water to every consumer. ( 6 ) THE question for consideration is : 'whether Regulation 7-A is within the powers of the Board conferred on it under Section 31 of the Act?' The Learned Single Judge has answered it in the negative and the correctness of that answer is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals. ( 6 ) THE question for consideration is : 'whether Regulation 7-A is within the powers of the Board conferred on it under Section 31 of the Act?' The Learned Single Judge has answered it in the negative and the correctness of that answer is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals. ( 7 ) IN the case of Jagadamba Paper Industries, AIR1983 SC 1296 , 1983 (2 )SCALE1008 , (1983 )4 SCC508 , [1984 ]1 SCR165 , 1984 (16 )UJ126 (SC ) decided on 23-9-1983, after the Learned Single Judge rendered the Judgment under appeal, the Supreme court considered as to whether the power conferred on the Electricity Board under Section 49 of the Act included the power to require the consumers to make deposit in advance. The Supreme court held, it does and stated thus : "7. We are of the view that the Board has been conferred with statutory power under Section 49 (1) of the Act to determine the conditions on the basis of which supply is to be made. *** section 49 (1) of the Act clearly indicates that the Board may supply electricity to any person upon such terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit. In exercise of this power the Board had initially introduced the condition regarding security and each of the petitioners had accepted the term. ( 8 ). . . . . . . . WE are therefore inclined to take the view that the Board had the authority to amend the conditions. In exercise of that power, the Board has now raised additional demand. " as Section 31 of the Act is similarly worded as Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, on the same reasoning, it should be held that Section 31 which confers power on the Board to make regulations for the supply of water under such conditions as may be specified, includes the power to require the consumers to make deposit in advance as a condition for the supply of water in addition to the security deposit of Rs. 20/- which was one of the conditions prescribed under regulation 7. 8. 20/- which was one of the conditions prescribed under regulation 7. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that it has not been" the case of the board that Regulation 7a was made with the object of requiring the consumers to make security deposit as was done under the Rules which was considered by the Supreme Court. He pointed out that according to the statement of objection filed by the Board in the Writ Petitions, the object of framng Regulation was with the object of collecting more revenue in order to meet capital expenditure and therefore the Regulation was beyond the powers conferred under any of the provisions of the Act. ( 9 ) IT is true that in the statement of objection filed in the case there has been an elaborate reference to the financial position of the Board and its requirement of more finance for undertaking various works and incur capital expenditure, instead of making a short and specific plea that the deposit required under Regulation 7a was in the nature of enhanced security deposit for the purpose of ensuring prompt payment of the bills by the consumers. However, in paragraph 1 of the statement of objection the Board had stated that the Regulation had been made in exercise of its power under Section 31 of the Act. The relevant portion of the statement reads : "1. The respondents admit that Annexure A is the notification wherein B W S S B had made the regulations called Bangalore Water Supply (Amendment) Regulations, 1981. The Regulations are made by B W S S B in-exercise of the power conferred on it by Sections 31, 61 and 88 and all other enabling provisions of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964. It is made in accordance with law and is in conformity with the powers vested in the Board under the provisions of the Act. The new Regulations are valid in law and are consistent with the provisions of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964, and Rules made thereunder. The Board has secured the previous approval of the State Government and the draft of the same has been duly and previously published in Karnataka Gazette dt. 18-6-1981 as required under sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the B. W. S. S. Act, 1964. The Board has secured the previous approval of the State Government and the draft of the same has been duly and previously published in Karnataka Gazette dt. 18-6-1981 as required under sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the B. W. S. S. Act, 1964. "At paragraph 5 of the objection statement, the Board stated as follows : "5. The demand for deposit of 6 times the average monthly charge is made under new Regulation 7-A and it is in accordance with law and is in conformity with the several provisions of the b. W. S. Act, 1964. The respondent Board has jurisdiction to make these Regulations. The demand made under amended Regulation 7-A is not by way of tax as alleged by the petitioners. It is only a charge (deposit) collected as a condition of service for rendering effective service that could be expected of the respondent as its duty under Section 16 of the Statute of B. W. S. S. Act, 1964. " ( 10 ) HAVING regard to the fact that Regulation 7a was introduced into the Regulations in the exercise of its power under Section 31 of the Act below Regulation 7 and also having regard to the other provisions of the Regulations, there can be no doubt that the deposit required to be made by the consumers under Regulation 7a was only an advance deposit as security for ensuring prompt payment of water charges and therefore the regulation which requires the consumers to make such deposit is squarely within the powers conferred on the Board under section 31 of the Act. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Writ Petitioners who are respondents in these appeals however contended that even on the basis that the Board had the power to require the consumers to make a reasonable amount as deposit, the demand for deposit of even three months' average charges was unreasonable in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court as according to it a requirement to deposit two months' average charges alone would be reasonable. In any event, he submitted that requiring the non-domestic consumers to make a deposit of six months average charges when domestic consumers are required to make a deposit of only three months average charges was not only discriminatory but also arbitrary. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Board explained as to why the advance deposit was required. In any event, he submitted that requiring the non-domestic consumers to make a deposit of six months average charges when domestic consumers are required to make a deposit of only three months average charges was not only discriminatory but also arbitrary. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Board explained as to why the advance deposit was required. In this behalf he referred to Section 53 (c) and the proviso to Clause (h) of Section 53. They read : "53. Power to cut off water supply : (1) The Board may cut off the supply of water from any premises : (c) if any charges or any other sum due for water or for the cost of making a connection or the hire of a meter or the cost of carrying out any work or test connected with the water supply which is chargeable to any person by or under this Act is not paid within fifteen days after a bill for such charges or sums has been presented or served. xxx xxx xxx provided that the Board shall not cut off the supply of water unless notice of not less than three days has been given to the owner or occupier of the premises. " (Underlining by me) learned Counsel for the Board pointed out that in the nature of things it requires atleast 15 to 20 days for the employees of the Board to go to each and every house and prepare the bills for the preceding month and hand over the same to the consumers; in view of Section 53 (1) (c) of the act, the Board is required to give at least 15 days time for payment from the date on which the bill is presented to the consumers and consequently the due date for payment of the bill will be almost at the end of the next month and in the meanwhile the consumers will be consuming water without payment. He also pointed out that before disconnecting, for non-payment of the bill, in view of the proviso to Clause (h) of Section 53, the Board was required to give three days' notice and that apart there was also provision for payment of- the bills by cheques and that in the normal course the realisation of cheques would take about a week or 10 days. For these, reasons, he 'submitted that by the time the Board actually realises the amount due under a bill in respect of consumer, in many cases, it will be more than two months and therefore requiring the consumers to make a deposit equal to three months' average charges cannot be regarded as unreasonable. As far as non-domestic consumers are concerned, Learned Counsel submitted that they fall into a different category and having regard to the fact that they are Industrialists and businessmen making profit out of their business, demanding of deposit equal to six months' average charges from them cannot be regarded as unreasonable. ( 13 ) ON consideration of the Submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Board, relying on section 53 of the Act and the time involved in preparing the bill and realising the amounts paid in cheques etc. , we are convinced that as. it would take atleast about 2 1/2 months before the water charges for any particular month is recovered by the Board, a requirement to deposit three months' charges cannnot be regarded as unreasonable. It may be seen from the Judgment of the supreme Court, in the case of Kistna Cement Works v. The Secretary, A. P. S. E. B. , AIR1979 AP 291 that the Electricity Board of Andhra Pradesh had required the consumers to make desposit of an amount equal to three months' average charges, and that the validity of that regulation was upheld by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and that judgment has been approved by the Supreme Court. We are therefore of the view that the requirement to deposit aid amount equal to three months' average charges cannot be regarded as unreasonable. ( 14 ) AS far as the writ petitioners who are Responden in these appeals, are concerned, they are non-domestic consumers. They are required to deposit an amount equal to six months average charges. The only ground submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Board for demanding double the amount of deposit was that the domestic consumers and non-domestic consumers fail into a reasonable classification and therefore the latter are not similarly situated with the former and therefore cannot complain of discrimination. There is no substance in this plea. The only ground submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Board for demanding double the amount of deposit was that the domestic consumers and non-domestic consumers fail into a reasonable classification and therefore the latter are not similarly situated with the former and therefore cannot complain of discrimination. There is no substance in this plea. It is true that domestic and non-domestic consumers do fall into the separate classes and that Section 31 itself permits the Board to fix separate rates for the supply of water to different types of consumers. The existence of difference between the two classes has been made the basis by the Board in fixing the rate for the water. Admittedly, according to the regulations, the rate for supply of water for domestic consumers is less where as the rate fixed for non-domestic consumers is high. For that purpose they do stand on different basis. But when it comes to the question of making deposit, that classification has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. For instance, if the average monthly charges payable by at domestic consumer is Rs. 10/- he will be required to make a deposit of Rs. 30/- under Regulation 7a, but whereas in the case of non-domestic consumer if the average monthly charges payable by him is Rs. 1,000/- per month, even if he is required to deposit an amount equal to three months' average consumption charges,he will be required to deposit Rs. 3000/-, but the impugned regulation requires him to deposit Rs. 6000/ -. As the object of the deposit is to ensure prompt payment of the bills, there is absolutely no rational nexus between the object and the regulation in so far it requires a non-domestic consumer to make a deposit equal to six months' average charges. Therefore, the regulation to this extent, in our view, is patently discriminatory and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 15 ) APART from the regulation being discriminatory, the requirement to make deposit of an amount equal to six months' average consumption charges is also arbitrary amounting to abuse of the power conferred under Section 31. Therefore, the regulation to this extent, in our view, is patently discriminatory and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 15 ) APART from the regulation being discriminatory, the requirement to make deposit of an amount equal to six months' average consumption charges is also arbitrary amounting to abuse of the power conferred under Section 31. As explained by the Learned Counsel for the Board himself, having regard to the provisions of Section 53 and also the time required for preparing the bill, by the time the amount due under a bill is recovered by the Board fora particular month, it might take about 2 1/2 months. This will be the same in respect of domestic consumers as well as non-domestic consumers. Therefore, if three months average charge is reasonable for domestic consumers, it must be so in respect of non-domestic consumers also. Demand of higher deposit from non-domestic consumers is therefore arbitrary and this is an additional ground to hold that the regulation is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 16 ) IN the light of the discussion as above, we hold that Regulation 7-A is intra vires the power of the Board under Section 31 of the Act, but the clause which requires non-domestic consumers to deposit six times the average monthly charges, is unreasonable and arbitrary and the writ petitioners are entitled to the direction to the Board not to collect more than three times average monthly charges from each of the petitioners. Therefore, there is no justification to strike down the regulation and it is sufficient to issue direction to the Board not to demand from the respondents more than three months charges as it is competent for this Court to mould the relief having due regard to the requirements of the situation. (See : State of M. P. v. Ram Raghubir prasad.), AIR 1979 SC 888 at 893, Para 17. (See : State of M. P. v. Ram Raghubir prasad.), AIR 1979 SC 888 at 893, Para 17. ( 17 ) THE next question for consideration is the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the event of the Court accepting the plea of the Board that the deposit required under Regulation 7a is in the nature of security deposit for ensuring payment in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagadamba Paper Industries, AIR1983 SC 1296 , 1983 (2 )SCALE1008 , (1983 )4 SCC508 , [1984 ]1 scr165 , 1984 (16 ) UJ126 (SC ) in view of the same Judgment this Court should direct the board to pay interest on the amount so deposited by the consumers, In support of the submission, learned Counsel relied on paragraph 11 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagadamba paper Industries' case, AIR1983 SC 1296 , 1983 (2 )SCALE1008 , (1983 )4 SCC508 , [1984 ]1 SCR165 , 1984 (16 )UJ126 (SC ). It reads : "11. On the security amount interest at the rate of 4% was initially payable. The same has already been enhanced to 8% per annum. Since the amount is held as security, we indicated to the counsel for the Board that security amount should bear the same interest as admissible on fixed deposits of Scheduled Banks for a term of years and we suggested keeping the present rate of interest in view that it should be enhanced at 10%. Board's counsel has now agreed that steps would be taken to enhance the present rate of interest of 8% to 10% with effect from October 1, 1983. " there is force in the submission. Once the amount which is required to be deposited by the consumers with the Board under the impugned regulation is in the nature of security deposit, the board must pay interest for the amount held in deposit. In fact as can be seen from the, bills produced as annexures along with the Petitions, there is a, provision for collecting interest at 12 per cent per annum from the consumers if there is delay on the part of the consumers in paying the bills after the due date. In fact as can be seen from the, bills produced as annexures along with the Petitions, there is a, provision for collecting interest at 12 per cent per annum from the consumers if there is delay on the part of the consumers in paying the bills after the due date. When the Board requires the consumers to pay interest if they make delay in paying the water charges which is due to the Board, the Board cannot avoid payment of interest to the consumers when it requires the consumers to make a deposit of an amount equal to three months average charges. ( 18 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Board, however, submitted that it was impracticable for the Board to calculate and pay interest to the consumers as there were about 1,69,000 domestic consumers and out of them only 7,000 were consuming more than 10000 litres of water per month and would be paying substantial amount as deposit and further there would be enormous labour involved in calculating interest, if this Court were to direct the Board to pay interest to all the consumers who are required to make deposit under Regulation 7a and the amount of interest an individual gets is too small. ( 19 ) IT is seen from the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kistna Cement Works, AIR1979 AP 291 , that in the Regulations made long ago, the Andhra electricity Board had made provision for payment of interest only in respect of deposits of Rs. 25/- or more. Having regard to the present value of the rupee, we consider that it would be reasonable to require the Board to pay interest only to such consumers who would be required to make a deposit of Rs. 180/- or more and that such interest should be calculated once in a year and it shall either be paid to the consumers or adjusted towards the amount due from them to the board under the monthly bill. As far as rate of interest is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Jagadamba Paper Industries, AIR1983 SC 1296 , 1983 (2 )SCALE1008 , (1983 )4 SCC508 , [1984 ]1 SCR165 , 1984 (16 )UJ126 (SC ) has considered that the requirement to pay interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum would be reasonable. As far as rate of interest is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Jagadamba Paper Industries, AIR1983 SC 1296 , 1983 (2 )SCALE1008 , (1983 )4 SCC508 , [1984 ]1 SCR165 , 1984 (16 )UJ126 (SC ) has considered that the requirement to pay interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum would be reasonable. Therefore, we also direct that the interest shall be paid at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the deposits. ( 20 ) In the result, we make the following order : (i) The appeals are allowed in part. (ii) The impugned Regulation 7a in so far as it requires the non-domestic consumers to make deposit more than three times average monthly charges, is declared invalid. (iii) A writ of mandamus shall issue to the Board not to collect more than three times the average monthly charges as deposit from the writ petitioners. (iv) The Board shall also calculate the interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum on the amount of deposit made by the consumers under Regulation 7a of the Regulations, if the amount of deposit is Rs. 100/-or more and shall calculate the interest payable once a year and either pay it to the consumers concerned or adjust the same towards the amount due from them under the monthly bills.