GODA RAGHURAM, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and with their consent, the writ petition itself is disposed of at the stage of admission. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Poultry Farm Unit, which was established in the year 1994 under the name and style of M/s Aruna Poultry Farm. The petitioner obtained electricity service connection bearing No. 1125/44970 after the establishment of the Poultry Farm. While so, by the proceedings dated 6-11-2000, impugned herein, the 3rd respondent in purported exercise of powers available under clause 27 of the Statutory Terms and Conditions of supply declared that the petitioner s Service Connection No. 1214/79655 and another Service Connection No. 1264/82790 would be treated as one service and would be billed under HT Category I optional category III (B ). The petitioner has also been directed to make arrangements for conversion of two service connections above into HT-I optional category III (B ). Thereupon, the petitioner sent up a representation saying that the other connection relates to poultry sheds which are located in a separate building at Aruna Poultry Complex and that there is no warrant for combining the two service connections. Despite the objections submitted by the petitioner and without considering the same, acting upon the unilateral decision of the 3rd respondent dated 6-11-2000, a bill was issued to the petitioner on 11-4-2001 charging him at a tariff based on HT category. Assailing the same, the petitioner is before this Court for appropriate relief. ( 3 ) CLAUSE 27 of the Terms and Conditions does not confer an uncharted and uncanalised power on the respondents to merge or amalgamate two service connections at their mere pleasure. The condition precedent for exercise of the power of merger under clause 27 is that if two or more separate establishments situated within single premises are owned or leased by the same person and requiring electricity for the purposes covered under the same category of tariff, they may be treated as a single establishment. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the fact that conversion from L. T. category to H. T. category involves charging the consumer at higher rate, the conversion or merger occasions adverse civil consequences. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the fact that conversion from L. T. category to H. T. category involves charging the consumer at higher rate, the conversion or merger occasions adverse civil consequences. Since, the respondents are exercising the power under clause 27 of the statutory Terms and Conditions of Supply, which are upheld by the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Vanaspathi Limited v. APSEB, AIR 1998 sc 1715 , the respondents are obligated to comply with all the public law and constitutional limitations upon their conduct. Having regard to the legal environment in which the power inheres and the consequent adverse civil consequences to the consumer and the settled principles of public law, the respondents are obligated to comply with the principles of natural justice before exercising the power of treating the two distinct connections as one. The impugned order of the 3rd respondent dated 6-11-2000 neither on its terms nor on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents is seen to have been passed after complying with the principles of natural justice. No opportunity to submit his objections before the decision is taken by the 3rd respondent has been afforded to the petitioner. The order is therefore void and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the bill raised on the basis of the invalid order of the 3rd respondent dated 6-11-2000 is also inoperative for the same reasons. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are however at liberty to initiate such proceedings for exercise of the power under clause 27 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply as are available to them, but in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of law. No order as to costs.