Honble SINGHAL, J. –All these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment, since the controversy involved is common to all of them. (2). The dispute is with regard to charging of cash security for additional one month instead of bank guarantee or making the payment of bills for 15 days. (3). The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that amendment dt. 24th June, 1997 is ultravires the Indian Electricity Act and in any case, such an amendment cannot be made applicable to the contracts already entered into by the Board. It is also contended that under Sec. 23 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 the charges for energy could be on the basis of the actual amount of energy supplied by R.S.E.B. and there is no power under which the provisional collection could be made by issuing the bill for 15 days. The monthly bill could alone be issued. The liability which has now been created is by the subordinate legislation which is beyond the competence of the said Authority. In this regard, it may be observed that the provisions of Sec. 23 are subject to any agreement and if there is a specific agreement, then the agreement shall prevail. Under Sec. 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 the Board is empowered to fix the tariff. The conditions which could be added in General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Misc. Charges relating to the supply of electricity could be only in consonance there with. (4). In order to appreciate the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be observed that all these petitioners/consumers have entered into an agree- ment with R.S.E.B. Clause 28(a) of the agreement provides that ``the consumer shall comply to the conditions of supply prescribed by the Board and as modified from time to time in its book-let ``General Conditions & Scale of Miscallenous charges relating to the supply of electricity so far as the same are applicable. From the above condition of agreement, it is evident that even the conditions as modified from time to time in General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Misc. Charges relating to the supply of electricity have been agreed upon by the petitioners to be complied with. The petitioner cannot retract from such a condition. The contention that amendment dt. From the above condition of agreement, it is evident that even the conditions as modified from time to time in General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Misc. Charges relating to the supply of electricity have been agreed upon by the petitioners to be complied with. The petitioner cannot retract from such a condition. The contention that amendment dt. 24.6.1997 should be made applicable prospectively and not to the existing consumer therefore has no force. (5). Clause 21(a) of the agreement refers to the security. Clause 31 of the General Conditions of Supply provides that in the event of any difference or dispute arising between the Board and the consumer in respect of any matter connected with the supply which cannot be determined, the matter has to be decided by the `Consumers Dues Settlement Committees. The said Committees have been given status of arbitrator and the proper remedy for the petitioner was to raise dispute in accordance with Clause 31 of the General Conditions of Supply. Earlier, disputes were to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act. Since there are large number of writ petitions, the matter is now being decided on merit. (6). Clause 20(e) of the General Conditions of Supply provides that Board shall be at liberty to demand enhanced security deposit from any consumer at any time during the period of continuance of supply to him. In the Schedule of Service and Misc. Charges at item No. 9 security deposit have been specified, for new connections as well as for existing connections. In respect of industrial category, if the new connection is desired, it was provided that security equivalent to two months minimum charges under relevant tariff schedule (one month in cash and one month in form of bank gaurantee/insurance guarantee) would be given. For the existing connections of industrial consumers, the amount of security deposit was to be reviewed at the beginning of every financial year on the basis of average mon- thly consumption during preceding year or monthly minimum charges whichever is higher and the amount equivalent to two months consumption charges or minimum charges whichever is higher is to be recovered (one month in case and one month in form of Bank Guarantee/Insurance Guarantee). The security which remains with R.S.E.B. is interest free. The security which remains with R.S.E.B. is interest free. The validity of such a provision was examined by the Apex Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. vs. A.P. State Electricity Board (1), while examining the justification for demanding three months security. It was observed by the Apex Court as under :– ``The reason why three months security deposit is demanded is, for two months, the consumer gets free electricity. For supply of such electricity, the Board has to borrow and make payment of interest. If there are no consumer deposits, the tariff shall have to be increased. That will effect all the consumers. Interest at 2% is charged in case of default only in order to ensure proper payment. It is penal in character. In the judgment under appeal, the High Court held that the burden relating to interest can be reflected either in the tariff or could be set off by calling upon the consumer to make deposit. In fact, this Court has upheld the tariff revision effected by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board as seem from Hindustan Zink Ltd. Elect. Board and Ors. ( 1991 (3) SCC 299 ). it cannot be contended that the three months consump- tion deposit is arbitrary. This argument ignores the following important factors :– (i) This is not a security deposit but a consumption deposit. (ii) It is in the nature of an advance payment. (iii) In the event of failure to pay, it could be proceeded against as seen from clause 28.1.2. (iv) Consumption deposit is variable as per Clause 28. 2 (iv). If therefore, the object of consumption deposit is to ensure proper payment with reference to electricity supply, there is nothing arbitrary or unjustificable. The contention that the consumer is deprived of the interest on cash security deposit was negatived by observed :– 1. The cycle of billing demonstrates that in the very nature of things, the consumer is supplied energy on credit. The security deposit is hardly sufficient to secure the payment to the Board by the time the formal bill by the Board is raised on the consumer. 2. The consumption, security deposit indeed represents only part of the money which is payable to the Board at the end of the billing cycle. The security deposit is hardly sufficient to secure the payment to the Board by the time the formal bill by the Board is raised on the consumer. 2. The consumption, security deposit indeed represents only part of the money which is payable to the Board at the end of the billing cycle. The said amount can be appropriated at any time towards the payments that are due to the Board and reflected in the formal bill. 3. In the nature of billing cycle it is the Board which has to receive interest on the energy supplied to the consumers on credit. 4. The concept of interest earned on a fixed deposit is alien to the issue. The liabilities of the consumer increase on a daily basis depen- ding on the level of supply and consumption. Therefore, the amounts due are liable to be appropriated forthwith. That is not possible where moneys are placed either on fixed deposit or a savings bank account. (7). The provisions regarding security deposit under Part II of the General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Misc. Charges relating to the supply of electricity with reference to R.S.E.B. were examined in the said case and it was observed that the security deposit is consumption deposit like uses fructual mortgage. The legislative sanction behind power of the Board to direct a consumer to furnish a security in the context of provisions of Electricity Supply Act/Electricity Act, 1910 was examined. It was observed that if regulations prescribed a security deposit that will have to be complied. It also requires to be noticed that under Clause (6) of Schedule II of the Electricity Act that the requisition for supply of energy by the Board is to be made under proviso (a) after a written contract is duly executed with sufficient security. This, together with the regulation stated above, could be effective with legal sanction. In cases where regulations have not been made, Rule 27 of the Rules made under the Electricity Act enables the adoption of model form of draft conditions of supply. Annex. VI in clause 14 states that licensee may require any consumer to deposit security for the payment of his monthly bills for energy supplied and for the value of the meter and other apparatus installed in his premises. Thus, the Board has the power to make regulations to demand securityfrom consumers. Annex. VI in clause 14 states that licensee may require any consumer to deposit security for the payment of his monthly bills for energy supplied and for the value of the meter and other apparatus installed in his premises. Thus, the Board has the power to make regulations to demand securityfrom consumers. The justification for demanding security of three months on the basis of judgment given in the case of K.C. Works vs. Secretary, A.P.S.E.B. Vidhyut Soudha (2), Haryana Ice Factory vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (3) and Southern Steel Ltd. Hyderabad vs. The A.P. State Electricity Board (4), was also considered. (8). A question was raised that no reasons have been given for additional con- sumer deposit but that contention was negatived and it was observed that it stands to reason that if there is a revision in the rate of rate tariff, there must be an upward revision in the consumption security deposit, since it has a direct bearing to the level of supply in consumption of electricity. (9). For upholding the validity of interest free deposit, it was observed :– 1. The consumer made the security deposit in consideration of the performance of his obligation for obtaining the service which is essential to him. 2. The electricity supply is made to the consumers on credit as has been noticed above. 3. The billing time taken by the Board is to the advantage of the consumer. 4. Public revenues are blocked in generation, transmission and distribution of electricity for the purpose of supply. The Board pays interest on the loans borrowed by the Board. This is inh order to per- form public service. On those payments made by the Board it gets no interest from the consumers. 5. The Board needs back its blocked money to carry out public service with reasonable recompense. 6. The Board is not essentially a commercial organisation to which the consumer has furnished the security to earn interest thereon. (10). In Jagdamba Paper Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Haryana State Electricity Board (5), the justification for demanding security equal to the energy bill or a little more was upheld. (11). If the history of security amount is taken into consideration, it would be found that initially the security equivalent to one months consumption or upto Rs.50/- whichever was higher in cash and balance in the form of bank guarantee or insurance guarantee was required. (11). If the history of security amount is taken into consideration, it would be found that initially the security equivalent to one months consumption or upto Rs.50/- whichever was higher in cash and balance in the form of bank guarantee or insurance guarantee was required. By order dt. 20..8.85 the security was for three months which included cash as well as bank guarantee. The practice for demanding cash security for one month and bank guarantee for two months appears to be continued from 30th June, 1993 on which date two months bank guarantee was reduced to one month by amendment dt 6.4.1995. In the General Conditions of Supply, the security deposit for new connection of industrial category was equivalent to two months minimum charges in which one month was in cash and one month was in the form of bank guarantee. For the existing connections also, two months consumption charges or minimum charges whichever is higher was provided to be recovered in the form of one month in cash and one month in form of bank guarantee. For other consumers, other than industrial category by order dt. 5th July, 1995 two months consumption or minimum charges whichever is higher in cash was directed to be taken and no bank guarantee was to be obtained. With effect from 3rd February, 1996, new industrial connections were required to deposit security for two months consumption charges in cash only. Clause 21 (a) of the `Agreement form for large industrial consumers was amended on 18.5.95 requiring two months cash security. Part II under the head `Schedule of Service and Misc. Charges for existing consumers under heading of General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Misc. Charges relating to supply of Electricity. (12). By order dt. 24th June, 1997 security deposit now has been specified for two months consumption charges or minimum charges whichever is higher in form of cash only and no bank guarantee is to be taken. This amendment dt 24th June, 1997 provides that if the consumer requests for status quo (one month cash plus one month bank guarantee) to be maintained, he could do so provided he opts to be billed on fortnightly basis. From the above amendment in the General Conditions of Supply, it is evident that security of two months alone in cash has to be deposited. From the above amendment in the General Conditions of Supply, it is evident that security of two months alone in cash has to be deposited. If the consumer considers that status quo as on today should be main- tained, then it has been left to his option and in such a circumstance, the provisional bill on fortnightly basis has to be drawn. It is not a complusion but is only an option of the consumer. The requirement of law is furnishing of cash security for two months. The validity of such a provision has already been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation (supra) wherein cash security of two months or even a little more was considered reasonable. In Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, U.P. West Bengal cash security of two months was demanded while in Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Karnataka and Maharashtra cash security of two months is taken. The requirement of cash security of two months therefore cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. (13). I may also observe that Clause 22 (c) of the General Conditions of Supply was amended on 27.5.1997 in which the consumer was required to pay to the Board every fortnight/month at the option of the Board or as may be otherwise required, charges for the electrical energy supplied to him during the preceding fortnight /month. This amendment under clause 22 (c) has to be considered as authorising the Board for fortnightly bill only in case where the cash security of two months is not given in accordance with the notification dt. 24.6.97. There are other circumstances where the Board can bill fortnightly which is not in dispute in these writ petitions. Clause 25(i) of the General Conditions of Supply also authorises the Board to bill the consumer fortnightly. The validity of this fortnight billing cannot be questioned because it has been left to the discretion of the consumer and if the consumer feels that bill should be raised by him monthly, then he must make the payment of two months cash security. It is only in a case where one month cash security and one month bank guarantee is obtained, such a consumer is required fortnightly billing. Looking to the entire process of taking reading, preparation of bill, despatch of bill and ultimately payment of bill after grace period, such a provision cannot be considered to be arbitrary. It is only in a case where one month cash security and one month bank guarantee is obtained, such a consumer is required fortnightly billing. Looking to the entire process of taking reading, preparation of bill, despatch of bill and ultimately payment of bill after grace period, such a provision cannot be considered to be arbitrary. In these circumstances, the validity of notification dt. 24.6.97 is upheld. It will be open to the petitioners to make payment in cash of additional one month security based on consumption or mini- mum charges whichever is higher and if the petitioner feels that existing system should continue, then option for fortnightly billing cannot be considered to be unreasonable. The view taken in Paliwal Brothers vs. R.S.E.B., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3749/97 decided on 13.10.97 does not require any re-consideration. The writ petitions are dismissed.