ORDER: The petitioners have challenged the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent- Electricity Board, on 21.2.2000, as modified in the proceedings dated 4.3.2000. 2. Originally, for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the flats, the officials of the 1st respondent- Electricity Board used to estimate the amount regarding the cost of laying service line, etc. and on payment of the same, such work for laying service line was taken up and service connections were given. Under the impugned proceedings, the Electricity Board asked the Flat builders/ promoters to pay a fixed amount per flat for availing single phase supply and three phase supply. If it is a residential flat, they have to pay Rs.10,000 per flat for availing single phase supply and Rs.15,000 per flat for availing three phase supply as erection charges in addition to other miscellaneous charges such as service connection charges, development charges, meter caution deposit, current consumption deposit etc. The erection charges was fixed at Rs.15,000 per flat for single phase and Rs.25,000 per flat for three phase service. The said procedure is adopted only to flat promoters in the city of Chennai. It will not apply to individual houses even if they are constructed jointly by more than one person, and it will not apply to other part of the State. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.10133, and the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6512 of 2000 have submitted that the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent- Board are contrary to the specific provisions contemplated under the terms and conditions of supply of electricity notified by the 1st respondent- Board and so the 1st respondent- Board has no authority or power to issue such a Board Standing Order contrary to the said terms and conditions, which is impugned in these writ petitions. The learned Senior Counsel took me through various clauses in the terms and conditions to substantiate his submission that under the said terms and conditions, the procedures have been contemplated specifically to levy charges only by estimating the cost for laying the service line. 4. The learned Senior Counsel took me through various clauses in the terms and conditions to substantiate his submission that under the said terms and conditions, the procedures have been contemplated specifically to levy charges only by estimating the cost for laying the service line. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- Board to sustain the impugned proceedings has submitted that when the promoters have been collecting huge amount from the prospective buyers, they have to pay the amount fixed by the Board as the Board has to incur huge amount for laying service line. The learned counsel also relying on the counter has submitted that the Board is at liberty to fix the charges payable by the prospective consumers which cannot be questioned by the petitioners and it is not contrary to the spirit of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity. 5. Under the impugned proceedings, the 1st respondent- Board has fixed certain fixed amounts for erection charges, as stated above, on the basis that the Board incurs an expenditure to the tune of Rs.50,000 per flat, whereas the Board charges the consumer around Rs.5,000 only per flat. It is also stated in the said proceedings that in order to avoid delay in effecting supply to flats, it was proposed to collect flat rates only for single and three phase connections in the built up flats. 6. Under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) the State Government is empowered to constitute, by notification in the Official Gazette, the State Electricity Board. Exercising the powers under Sec.5 of the Act, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was constituted. Under Sec.49 of the Act, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board may supply electricity to any person not being a licensee upon such terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit and may for the purpose of such supply frame uniform tariffs. Exercising such powers given under Sec.49 of the Act, the 1st respondent- Board notified the revised terms and conditions of supply of electricity in B.P.Ms.(FB) No.61, dated 24.12.1988 which is relevant for the purpose of the present case. Exercising such powers given under Sec.49 of the Act, the 1st respondent- Board notified the revised terms and conditions of supply of electricity in B.P.Ms.(FB) No.61, dated 24.12.1988 which is relevant for the purpose of the present case. The power given to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board under Sec.49 of the Act is that the Board can supply electricity to any person only upon such terms and conditions prescribed by the Board, which is accordingly notified in the Board’s proceedings dated 24.12.1988, and amended upto 31.8.1995. 7. Clause 8.00 of the terms and conditions deals with service lines. Clause 8.01 deals with any work of laying service line should be taken up only after the intending consumer pays the estimated amount in advance in full and the charges payable by the intending consumer for service line would be as prescribed by the Board from time to time. Even under Part II to the Schedule of the terms and conditions of supply which contemplates miscellaneous charges, the Board is entitled to charge the consumer the actual cost of materials and labour involved, plus 15% thereof. From the abovesaid provisions, it is clear that the charges can be collected from the consumer only on the basis of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity which contemplate the estimation by the authorities of the Board for the purpose of cost of laying service line. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- Board is not in a position to show any clause in the terms and conditions nor any other statutory rule to show that irrespective of such clauses in the terms and conditions, they are having power to fix the charges at flat rate without any estimation. When the terms and conditions have been framed exercising powers under Sec.49 of the Act, which occupied the field, the 1st respondent Board cannot now try to collect charges at flat rate on the basis of the impugned proceeding for which they have no power, as the same is contrary to the terms and conditions of supply. 8. For the reasons stated above, the impugned proceedings dated 21.2.2000 and 4.3.2000 insofar as they enable the 1st respondent- Board to collect the charges at flat rate of effecting single phase and three phase connections in the flats, cannot be sustained in law and so they are set aside. 8. For the reasons stated above, the impugned proceedings dated 21.2.2000 and 4.3.2000 insofar as they enable the 1st respondent- Board to collect the charges at flat rate of effecting single phase and three phase connections in the flats, cannot be sustained in law and so they are set aside. But, it will not prevent the 1st respondent- Board from collecting the charges as per the terms and conditions of supply, from the petitioners. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed with the above observations. No costs, connected W.M.Ps., are closed.