ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the Order No. CE (O)- 56/f. TE. MP/d. No. 585 of 1992 dated 2-12-1992 of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of india by striking down clause 39. 11 of terms and conditions of supply issued by the first respondent-Board and pass such other orders which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is Solvent Extract oil Industry and it was sanctioned electricity connection with a maximum demand of 250kva and 429-94 HP. The petitioner wanted to manufacture the products through a different process i. e. , soya bean instead of rice bran and it proposed to install an alternative machinery to the extent of about 60n HP and accordingly made an application to the Deputy Chief Electrical inspector, Government of Andhra Pradesh for approval of the machinery installed by it and based on the said representation, the deputy Chief Electrical Inspector accorded approval for the installation of the said machinery by letter dated 21-2-1987. It is further submitted that though the machinery was installed, it was never put into use of account of the lack of supply of the raw material required for the process, but it is consuming same connected demand. But the Assistant Divisional Engineer through the proceedings dated 23-9-1989 stated that the petitioner industry was connected with the load of 489-66 HP as against the sanctioned load of 429-95 HP, that he proposed to conduct an enquiry into the matter and provisionally estimated the value of the energy misused at Rs. 1,21,450-05 Ps. and observed that if the petitioner was desirous of continuity of the supply pending enquiry, it should pay an amount of rs. 60,725/- within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23-9-1989 with all relevant facts and the respondent through their letter dated 27-9-1989 informed that the petitioner has exceeded the sanctioned load and therefore, the application for installation ought to have been registered with them. 60,725/- within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23-9-1989 with all relevant facts and the respondent through their letter dated 27-9-1989 informed that the petitioner has exceeded the sanctioned load and therefore, the application for installation ought to have been registered with them. Then the petitioner filed Writ petition No. 14337 of 1989 challenging, the said proceedings, which was disposed of on 6-10-1989 directing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority and to deposit and amount of Rs. 30,000/- and he filed appeal before the Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer after hearing the matter and conducting personal inspection, allowed the appeal on 21-2-1991 directing for adjustment of deposited amount against future bills. But once again, the respondent board has issued a revised show-cause notice dated 29-6-1992 after a lapse of more than 1-1/2 years of the disposal of appeal stating that under clause 39. 11 of the terms of supply, member was nominated by the Chairman to look into the matter and without stating as to how the order of the appellate Authority is defective, a fresh demand was made for the said sum. The petitioner submitted reply on 29-7-1992 and the Member passed an order on 2-12-1992 setting aside the order of the Appellate authority and holding the petitioner guilty of malpractice. It is contended that invoking the power under clause 39. 11 of the terms and conditions of supply the issuance of memo by the first respondent is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. It is also contended that while clause 39. 11 enables the exercise of suo motu powers against such orders where the Board feels aggrieved, the same opportunity is denied to consumer and therefore, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the impugned order was passed on merely presumptions and surmises and it is not disputed that the Board did not sustain any loss. Questioning the impugned proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. ( 3 ) AS seen from clause 39 of the terms and conditions of supply contemplates malpractice including pilferage of energy. Clause 39. Questioning the impugned proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. ( 3 ) AS seen from clause 39 of the terms and conditions of supply contemplates malpractice including pilferage of energy. Clause 39. 11 empowers the Chairman or his nominee may suo motu at any time call for and examine the record of any order or proceedings recorded by the final assessment authority or appellate authority, for the purpose of satisfying himself regarding the propriety or legality of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in reference thereto, as he may think fit. It further contemplates that no order adverse to the consumer shall be passed without giving notice and opportunity for making a written representation to the consumer and the order passed by the Chairman or his nominee shall be final and not liable to be questioned in any Court of law and the consumer shall have no right to invoke this provision. ( 4 ) A reading of the above condition makes it clear that the Chairman or his nominee can, suo motu at any time call for and examine the records with reference to the order passed by the final assessment authority or appellate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself regarding the property or legality or such order or proceedings and pass such orders in reference thereto, as he may think fit. But for any order passed against the consumer, he must be given an opportunity to submit his representation. The above condition no. 39. 11 does not specify any time-limit to call for the records and examine, but any order passed by the Chairman or his nominee shall be final and not liable to be questioned in any Court of law. Thus the chairman is placed at such a top position to exercise his power in order to protect the interest of the Board. ( 5 ) IN this case, this power was exercised by the Secretary, who the nominee of the Chairman within a period of 11/2 years. Therefore, it cannot be said that this power was exercised unreasonably after a lapse of 11/2 years. On the other hand, for invoking this power by the chairman or his nominee, no time-limit was fixed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the proceedings issued by invoking the power contemplated under condition 39. Therefore, it cannot be said that this power was exercised unreasonably after a lapse of 11/2 years. On the other hand, for invoking this power by the chairman or his nominee, no time-limit was fixed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the proceedings issued by invoking the power contemplated under condition 39. 11 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India. ( 6 ) INSOFAR as the proceeding of the member-Secretary dated 2-12-1992 is concerned, a bare look makes it abundantly clear that after considering all the issues raised in the representation and after giving personal hearing and on thorough perusal of the relevant records came to a conclusion, that the petitioner committed malpractice as per clause 39. 1. 12 and 39. 1. 1. 3 of the terms and conditions of supply of the Board and he has given detailed reasons. This order was passed after giving opportunity to the consumer. Therefore, this order was passed after observing principles of natural justice, as mandated by the condition No. 39. 11. The member-Secretary has observed that the chief Engineer, Warangal Zone vide his proceedings dated 21-2-1991 has erroneously annulled the assessment of malpractice by considering on set of motors as stand by instead of considering the total connected loads connected to the supply system as the stand by load cannot be excluded from the purview of the total loads connected to the supply system as per the definition of the connected load under clause 2. 14 of the terms and conditions of supply of the board and thus set aside the order of the chief Engineer, Warangal Zone. He has further stated in the impugned order that the consumer himself has accepted that he had connected an additional connected load of 106 HP for soya bean section while the rice bran section load was already existing, that irrespective of whether the entire load is used at one instance or a part of the load only is used at any time, the consumer is not expected to increase his connected load without the approval of the Board, and this point was not considered by the Chief Engineer, Warangal Zone. It is further stated that the consumer had accepted the existence of unauthorised connected load and in view of the fact that he had not made any application as on the date of inspection on 28-7-1989 for approval of the unauthorised additional connected load, the charge of malpractice is established. For the said reasons, it was finally estimated that the value of loss of energy sustained by the Board on account of such malpractice by the consumer at rs. 1,21,447-00. ( 7 ) AS see from the detailed reasons given by the Member-Secretary to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of malpractice are well considered and he has also correctly estimated the value of the loss of energy sustained by the petitioner at rs. 1,21,447-00 and it cannot be held to be illegal or arbitrary, as the assessment is based on the conclusions arrived at by the Member secretary on the basis of the factual position. Further it is not the complaint of the petitioner that there is a violation of provision of law, but the complaint is that the power vested under condition No. 39. 11 was exercised after lapse of 1-1/2 years of the order passed by the Appellate Authority i. e. , the Chief Engineer, but the order passed by the Chief Engineer, A. P. , State Electricity board is not final and it is subject to the power exercisable under condition No. 39. 11 of conditions of supply. Of course, such power has to be exercised by the Chairman or his nominee within a reasonable time, that reasonable time depends on the facts and circumstances of each case i. e. , before invoking the power under condition no. 39. 11, the authority first has to satisfy on examining the records and other relevant material evidence. The suo motu exercise of power under condition No. 39. 11 is exercisable by the Chairman or his nominee, in the financial interest of the State Electricity board, subject to the satisfaction from the records. This suo motu power was entrusted to the Chairman or his nominee, if it is found that the order passed by the Original and the Appellate Authorities is contrary to the provision of the Electricity Act or the terms and conditions of supply, Rules and regulations framed from time to time. This suo motu power was entrusted to the Chairman or his nominee, if it is found that the order passed by the Original and the Appellate Authorities is contrary to the provision of the Electricity Act or the terms and conditions of supply, Rules and regulations framed from time to time. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of this case, the paramount importance of the exercise of the suo motu power conferred under condition No. 39. 11 is to protect the interest of the Electricity Board that to after verification of records and subject to the satisfaction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suo motu power of the exercise under condition No. 39. 11 is contrary to law, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. While drafting the above said conditions, the authority has taken care to protect the interest of the consumer by necessarily incorporating observance of principles of natural justice, if any order is passed against the consumer, the Board is required to give opportunity to the consumer against whom the Chairman or his nominee is proceeding under the suo motu power conferred under condition No. 39. 11. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, for the aforementioned reasons, sitting under extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, this Court cannot hold that the final assessment arrived at by the authority, who is well acquainted with the operation and maintenance of the power supply, is erroneous. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I do not see any reason to entertain the writ petition. ( 9 ) THE writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.