ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioner is a Holiday Resort. It owns another resort by name Orange County Resort in Siddapura, Kodagu District. Petitioner is seeking a declaration that its sister concern is entitled to supply of electric energy at concessional tariff. 2. In the first place, the declaratory relief sought for by the Petitioner cannot be granted by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. In the second place, the resort to whom the Petitioner is claiming the relief is not before this Court either in independent capacity or jointly with the Petitioner. 4. In the third place, the relief sought for in this writ Petition is granted by the Tourism Department under Annexure-B but such concession is restricted only for a period of three years. The grievance of the Petitioner is that such restriction should not be imposed and the concession shall be extended forever. The grievance has no basis at all. In fact, the concession granted pursuant to the Tourism Policy framed in the Government Order at Annexure-A providing incentives and concessions for promoting tourism activities with a view to enhance employment opportunities and generate income to the industry. Petitioner cannot expect any more concession from the Electricity Board which supplies the power. 5. Fourthly, the supply of power is governed under Electric Power Tariff framed under Section 49 of Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The tariff for the consumption of electricity shall be charged as prescribed thereunder. The Government order at Annexure-A cannot have over-riding effect of those statutory provisions of the Regulations and the tariff schedules framed by the Board in exercise of its power under the provisions of Section 49 of the Act, 1948. 6. Learned Counsel for the Electricity Board has rightly placed reliance upon paragraphs 3 and 4 of the decision reported in Harshad J. Shah and another Vs. L.I.C. of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 2459 , wherein it is held that it is for the Electricity Board to fix the power tariff taking into consideration several factors. The law laid down in that case squarely applies to the present case. 7. Viewed from any angle, the Petition is misconceived and is devoid of merit. The Board cannot be compelled to supply power at concessional rate for ever as sought for by the Petitioner. 8. Writ Petition is dismissed.