Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Mill herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the 1st respondent herein in its circular memo No. SE/1EMC/EE/8 AEE-2/896/91 dt/ 25-11-1991 and to quash the same so far as the clause (iii) is concerned, and consequentially to direct the 2nd respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 65,000/- paid toward the development charges and to pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. In support of the writ petition the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced the petitioner mills to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed, rebuting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits. 3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter affidavits together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. 4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not. 5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit of the petitioner mills is as follows :- The petitioner mill applied for availing HT service connection on 22-3-1990 and the same was sanctioned on 27-6-90. The construction of the building and completion of wiring were done by November 90. Thereafter an agreement was entered into by the petitioner with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 10-5-91 after paying the necessary charges including the requisite deposit amount. But, however, the electricity supply connection was delayed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The construction of the building and completion of wiring were done by November 90. Thereafter an agreement was entered into by the petitioner with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 10-5-91 after paying the necessary charges including the requisite deposit amount. But, however, the electricity supply connection was delayed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. In the meanwhile the Board in its proceedings No. BP (FB) 138 dt. 13-6-91 decided to collect development charges from all the applicants both for new and additional loads for service connections, other than huts, agricultural and public water supply line. Prior to this proceeding, there was no levy of development charges. Pursuant to the decision of the Board the 2nd respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 2-9-91 requesting the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000.00/- towards development charges @ Rs. 250/- per k.w. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 65,000/- in instalments. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent sent a communication to the petitioner dt. 12-12-91 stating that the petitioner has been exempted from paying further instalments of development charges in as much as the petitioner had paid all the charges for getting the new HT line well in advance before 15-6-91. This proceeding was sent by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the petitioner's request in view of the Circular Memo dt. 25-11-91 issued by the Chairman of the Tamil nadu Electricity Board. Under the said memo dt. 25-11-91, the board has stated that "the above request for waiver of development charges in respect of HT Applicants have been re-examined and the following instructions are issued :- (1) in the case of HT Applicants who have paid all other charges before 15-6-91 the development charges need not be collected. (ii) In case where payment of development charges in instalments have been permitted the waiver will be only to the extent of development charges not paid so far by that HT Applicant. (ii) No refund will be given for those HT applicants who have remitted the entire part amounts as ordered in case of LT. applicants. Aggrieved by the clause (iii) of circular Memo the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. It is contended by the petitioner that the circular memo dt. (ii) No refund will be given for those HT applicants who have remitted the entire part amounts as ordered in case of LT. applicants. Aggrieved by the clause (iii) of circular Memo the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. It is contended by the petitioner that the circular memo dt. 25-11-91 is contrary to law and is highly arbitrary, that when the Electricity Board gives up the development charges from those of the H.T. Applicants who had paid all other charges before 15-6-91, ought to have refunded the development charges to these HT applicants who had already paid the amount, and that the Board has totally failed to consider that the Applicants who have not paid the development charges have been given the benefit of not paying the same while the law-abiding H.T. Applicants who have paid the development charges in accordance with the demand by the Board, are now put to loss by depriving of their amounts paid towards the development charges even though the development charges have been waived by the Board. The classification made by the Board between the H.T. Applicants who have paid the development charges and the applicants who have not paid the same, is quite arbitrary, unreasonable and there is no nexus between the different classification and the object that has to be achieved. Virtually the H.T. applicants who have paid the development charges are put to loss and the instructions of the Board in issuing circular memo dt. 25-11-91 in violation of the Art. 14 of the constitution of India and hence liable to be quashed. It is also the case of the petitioner that the board has directed refund of the development charges to the L.T. Applicants alone whereas for H.T. Applicants has waived the amount for those who have not at all paid the entire amount. Those who had paid are refused the refund. When once it was decided by the Board not to levy the development charges from the applicants who have paid all the charges on or before 15-6-91, the Board ought to have refunded the development charges to those H.T. applicants also who have paid the development charges either in full or in part and the Board has no power to retain the amount. They also contended that when it has been decided to waive the amount from those who have paid the other charges before 15-6-91, then the retention of the amount already paid towards the development charges would be illegal. Therefore it is claimed by them that since the petitioner has already paid all the charges before 15-6-91 admittedly, the development charges paid by him ought to have been refunded to the petitioner. Therefore it is the strong contention of the petitioner that the circular dt. 25-11-91 is totally arbitrary and without any authority of law. They also contended that since the instructions of the Board in retaining the development charges to the extent of already paid so far, by such H.T. Applicants in cases where the payment of development charges in instalments have been permitted, is quite illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. 7. Per centre, in the counter-affidavit it is contrnded by the respondents that the petitioner applied for the H.T. Service connection on 22-3-90 and the same was sanctioned on 27-6-90 as per letter No. SE/SEDCTech/ASE/D1/E-Doc/ P.R. 542-1-90 dt. 17-6-90. Further an agreement was also entered into by the petitioner with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13-5-1991 after paying the earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 60,000/- and the Caution deposit of Rs. 15,000/- vide P.R. No. 503128 dt. 9-5-91. Accoridng to the respondents, the contention of the petitioner that the Electricity supply connection was delayed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is not on correct as the petitioner has obtained the safety certificate from Chief Electrical Inspector to Government who is the competent authority, after inspecting the premises only on 21-8-91 as per C.E.I. G..S. Letter No. 2358/E1/91 dt. 21-8-91. In case, if the safety certificate has been obtained prior to 15-6-91, the supply to the petitioner might have been effected before 15-6-91. They state that the Board has issued orders in B.P. (FB) 136 dt. 13-6-91 to collect the development charges from all the applicants who apply for new service connection and additional loads for the existing H.T. Service connections at the rate of Rs. 250/- per KVA for the services to be effected on or after 15-6-91. It is true that the consumer has been requested by the Executive Engineer in Lr. dt. 2-9-91 to pay the Development charges of Rs. 1,25,000/- immediately for effecting the supply. 250/- per KVA for the services to be effected on or after 15-6-91. It is true that the consumer has been requested by the Executive Engineer in Lr. dt. 2-9-91 to pay the Development charges of Rs. 1,25,000/- immediately for effecting the supply. The consumer has also represented in their letter dt. 4-9-91 to grant permission to pay the development charges in six monthly instalments and the consumer has also been permitted to pay the development charges in 6 monthly instalments as per letter dt. 7-9-91 after obtaining the recovery undertaking in the non-judicial stamped paper to the value of Rs. 2.50, The H.T. supply was effected on 13-9-91 after collecting the first instalment of development charge of Rs. 25,000/- vide F.R. No. 602903 dt. 7-9-92. The second instalments of Rs. 20,000/- and third instalment of Rs. 60,000/- have been collected on 10-10-91 and 11-11-91 vide P.R. Nos. 603097 and 603251 respectively. It is thus submitted that the consumer has paid Rs. 65,000/- in three instalments. It is also the case of the respondents, that a communication to the petitioner has been sent on 10-12-91 based on the Chairman's circular memo. No. dt. 25-11-91, informing the petitioner that he has been exempted from paying further instalments of development charges. The representations received from H.T. applicants requesting for a waiver of development charges have been re-examined and the instructions have been issued by the Chairman in the circular memo dt. 25-11-91 as stated by the petitioner herein is incorrect. According to the respondents the contention of the petitioner that they are aggrieved by the clause (iii) of the circular memo dt. 25-11-1991 is not correct. it is contended by the respondents that as per paras 3 and 7 of the agreement executed by the consumer, the petitioner has agreed to abide by tariff rates in general and miscellaneous charges notified by the board from time to time. The above conditions are binding on the consumer according to the agreement executed by the petitioner. Therefore, the circular memo. dt. 25-11-91 issued by the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity board is binding on the petitioner. As the consumer has agreed for the above conditions, it is not open to him to ask for the refund of the amount already paid by him. According to the respondents, as per clause 35.01 of the terms and conditions of supplies as approved in D.P.Ms. 25-11-91 issued by the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity board is binding on the petitioner. As the consumer has agreed for the above conditions, it is not open to him to ask for the refund of the amount already paid by him. According to the respondents, as per clause 35.01 of the terms and conditions of supplies as approved in D.P.Ms. (FB) No. 61 dt. 24-12-88, it is stipulated that the consumer is to abide by the terms and conditions of supply and the Board will have the right to change the terms and conditions of supply of electricity from time to time by special or General proceedings. Therefore, according to the respondents, the circular memo dt. 25-11-91 issued by the Chairman, TNEB is binding on the consumer. It is their strong case that the Board has right to refund or waive any charges in full or part, and that any order issued can take only prospective effect and hence the order issued in circular memo dt. 25-11-91 will be effective only from the said date. Accordingly the petitioner has been given waiver in respect of the remaining three instalments totalling to Rs. 60,00/- According to the respondents, the petitioner is bound to abide by the tariff rates and conditions of supply as and when it is amended with reference to clauses 6 and 7 of the agreement dt 13-5-91 executed by the petitioner and there is no justification in demanding the refund of the development charges already paid. It is also stated by the respondents that the petitioner has utilised electrical energy with the benefit for a period of 2 months from the date of availing supply. This position of advantage is to be reckoned by the petitioner before claiming refund of the amount deposited. Further it is also contended by the respondents that if he failed to remit the instalments amount as per his own request the respondent might have been prevented from effecting supply on 13-9-91 and the petitioner may hence failed to use the machinery etc. for such beneficial use. 8. Further it is also contended by the respondents that if he failed to remit the instalments amount as per his own request the respondent might have been prevented from effecting supply on 13-9-91 and the petitioner may hence failed to use the machinery etc. for such beneficial use. 8. Having seen the entire material available on records and from the facts and circumstances of the case and from the claims and counter claims made by the parties the only claim of the petitioner herein is that as the respondents have subsequently waived the development charges they are entitled for refund of the development charges of Rs. 65,000/- already paid by them. It is the admitted case of the parties that the Board in its proceedings No. BP (FB) 136 dt. 13-6-91 decided to collect development charges from all the applicants both for new and additional loads for service connections, other than huts, agricultural and public water supply line. Pursuant to the said decision of the Board, the 2nds respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 2-9-1991 requesting the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards defelopment charges @ Rs. 250/- per K.W. subsequently the 2nd respondent sent a communication to the petitioner dt. 10-12-1991 stating that the petitioner has been exempted from paying further instalments of development charges. In the impugned circular memo dt. 25-11-91, the petitiner herein is aggrieved only with regard to the clause (iii) of the circular memo in particular. This is very clear from the prayer in the writ petition itself. The impugned clause (iii) of the circular memo reads thus :- "No refund will be given for those HT applicants who have remitted the entire/part amounts as ordered in case of L.T. Applicants." In this regard it is significant to note that it is very clear from the clause (ii) of the circular memo in cases where payment of development charges in instalments have been permitted, the waiver will Be Only to the extent of development charges not paid so far by that HT Applicant. In this case admittedly the consumer was granted permission to pay the development charges in six monthly instalments and the consumer was permitted to pay so after obtaining necessary undertaking in the non-judicial stamped paper. Further H.T. supply was effected on 13-9-91 after collecting the first instalment of development charges of Rs. In this case admittedly the consumer was granted permission to pay the development charges in six monthly instalments and the consumer was permitted to pay so after obtaining necessary undertaking in the non-judicial stamped paper. Further H.T. supply was effected on 13-9-91 after collecting the first instalment of development charges of Rs. 25,000/- the second instalment of Rs. 20,000/- and third instalment of Rupees 20,000/- have been collected on 10-10-91 and 11-11-91. Thus it is clear that out of the six instalments agreed to by the petitioner, only three instalments have been paid. In the meanwhile the waiver came into effect and to the facts of the present case clause (ii) of the circular memo applies to this case. That apart, it is the strong case of the respondents that as per paras 3 and 7 of the agreement executed by the consumer the petitioner has agreed to abide by tariff rates in general and miscellaneous charges notified by the Board from time to time and the above conditions are binding on the consumer according to the agreement executed by the petitioner. It is strongly contended by the respondents that as consumer has agreed for the above condition, it is not open to him to ask for the refund of the amount already paid by him. Further it is also significant to note that as per clause 36.01 of the terms and conditions of supply as approved in B.P.Ms. (FB) No. 61 dt. 24-12-88 it is stipulated that the consumer is to abide by the terms and conditions of supply and the board will have the right to change the terms and conditions of supply of electricity from time to time by special or general proceedings and that therefore it is rightly contended by the respondents that the circular memo dt. 25-11-91 issued by the Chairman, TNEB, is binding on the consumer. It is also contended by the respondents that the Board has right to refund or waive any charges in full or part, and also that any order issued can take only prospective effect and hence the order issued in circular memo dt. 25-11-91 will be effective only from the said date and accordingly the petitioner has been given waiver in respect of the remaining three instalments totalling to Rs. 60,000/-. 25-11-91 will be effective only from the said date and accordingly the petitioner has been given waiver in respect of the remaining three instalments totalling to Rs. 60,000/-. It is also specifically contended by the respondents that the petitioner is bound to abide by the tariff rates and conditions of supply as and when it is amended with reference to clauses 6 and 7 of the agreement dt. 13-5-91 executed by the petitioner and there is no justification in demanding the refund of the development charges already paid. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I see every force in the above contentions of the respondents. Therefore, I am of the clear view that the petitioner herein is bound to abide by the tariff rates and conditions of supply as and when it is amended with reference to clauses, 6 and 7 of the agreement dt. 13-5-91 executed by the petitioner and there is no justification in demanding the refund of the development charges already paid. 9. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of this case, I am of the clear view that the petitioner herein has failed to make out any case in their favour and that therefore there is no need for any interference with the order impugned in this writ petition. Thus the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed for want of merits. 10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.