JUDGMENT :- These matters have been disposed of by a common judgment. The respondent-Electricity Board revised the tariffs exercising its power under Sec. 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short the Act) on October 17, 1989 and a further modification was made on April 21, 1990 with retrospective effect from October 17, 1989. The appellants challenged the increase in the tariff in the High Court in W. P. Nos. 10705/90 and 19967/90 and the connected writ petitions. The High Court disposed of these writ petitions by a common order in Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Allahabad v. Electricity Board and others, and the appellant is one of the writ petitioners in the batch. The High Court upheld the increase in the tariff thus this appeal by Special Leave. 2. It is contended by the learned Attorney General that the appellant is a public undertaking exclusively manufacturing life saving drugs having been located in hilly area, Rishi Kesh and that, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be, treated differently from other HV 2 industries. The High Court has committed error in not separately dealing with the question of the special significance with which the appellant is concerned and that, therefore, the appellant is entitled to a special treatment in the revision of tariff by the respondent-Board. When we directed the learned Attorney General to point out the nature of the pleadings with reference to the appellant-Industries and their entitlement to a separate treatment unfortunately he was not able to point out any particular facts specifically pleaded in that behalf but the facts are that the appellant is a public undertaking and is exclusively manufacturing life saving drugs at the controlled rates prescribed by the Government of India. It is also undisputed fact that it is not a profit making industry. Considering these facts and also having regard to the location of the industry in the hilly tribe and being a public undertaking the Board should have considered these circumstances in fixation of special tariff under S. 4, sub-sec (3) of the Act. The Board while exercising its power under S. 49(1) in fixing the uniform rate of tariff for the purpose of supply of electricity nothing in sub-sec. (1) and sub-sec (2) shall derogate from the power of the Board. The Board while exercising its power under S. 49(1) in fixing the uniform rate of tariff for the purpose of supply of electricity nothing in sub-sec. (1) and sub-sec (2) shall derogate from the power of the Board. If considers it necessary or expedient to fix different tariff for the supply of electricity to any person not being a licensee having regard to (1) geographical position of any area, (2) the nature of the supply, (3) purpose for which supply is required, (4) any other relevant factors. In other words the Board has power, despite its power under sub-sec. (1) and sub-sec. (2) of S. 49, to enter into a special agreement with any consumer and fix different tariff for the supply of electricity to such person not being a licencee. 3. Regard being had to the aforesaid factual matrix, we find it expedient that the appellant shall make a representation within a period of four weeks from today to the Electricity Board for consideration of the case for fixation of tariff having regard to the circumstances enumerated hereinbefore. On representation so made the Board shall dispose of the representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the appellant and the appellant shall make all the necessary factual material available before the Board and the Board shall having regard to those circumstances consider the desirability to fix a different tariff only in respect of the appellant having regard to the above facts and dispose it of expeditiously within another period of one month thereafter. It is contended by Shri B. Sen, learned senior counsel for the respondent that the appellants have not challenged the contract earlier i.e. from 1st September, 1986, they are bound by the revised rates effected on October 17, 1989 that fact is not in dispute. The dispute only has arisen when the revision of tariff was effected from October 17, 1989. It is true that not representation has been made by the appellant to the Board but the fact that they filed the writ petition and challenged the validity itself shows that they have the grievance of increase in the tariff from October 17,1989. Sri B. Sen, learned senior counsel also further stated that in 1992-94 further revision in the tariff was effected which have not been challenged. Sri B. Sen, learned senior counsel also further stated that in 1992-94 further revision in the tariff was effected which have not been challenged. We are informed that number of writ petitions have been filed and they are pending without going into the merits. 4. Suffice it to state that the Board will consider the desirability of fixing the special tariff for the appellants on and w.e.f. October 17, 1989 and onwards. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs. This will not be treated as a precedent to any other private industry. Order accordingly. For Citation: 1995 AIR SCW 28