Per V.K. Jhanji. J. 1. In this writ petition filed by the federation chamber of Industries, Kashmir, and the another, on behalf of as many as 1127 Small Scale and Medium Scale Industries Units situated in Kashmir, prayer made is to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, namely the Power Development Department of the State to the charge concessional rate of 4 paise per Unit from the Industrial Unit Holder of Kashmir in respect of Electricity supplied to them. The other prayer are that respondents be directly to supply electricity of requisite quantity quality on regular & uninterrupted basis, Charge rate for actual electricity supplied to and consumed by the Industrial Unit-Holders, charge electricity duty only on actual consumption and refund the excess amount charged, furnish monthly electricity bill and not charge interest on belated payments resulting from electricity department failure to furnish up to date monthly bills, not to charge higher/rent for Meter after their cost has been recovered from the consumer Unit- holders and finally quash Government Order No. 525- PDD of 1998 dated 21-11-1998. 2. The original writ petition was filed in the year 1988 at Srinagar but later on was got amended and amended petition filed in 2001. According to the petitioners, the Federation Chamber of Industries, Kashmir, is a registered Union of Small & Medium Industrial Units of Kashmir Division and is entitled to the file and prosecute the writ petition for enforcement and protection of the legal and constitutional rights of its members, all of whom, according to it, are permanent residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. It is stated that its member have set up their various Industrial Units in the province of Kashmir, Who are consumer of electricity supplied by the Jammu and Kashmir Power Development department (here in after referred to as the PDD� ). The case of the writ petitioners is that the State Government in order to attract potential entrepreneurs to set up the industries in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, offered various incentives for the development of Small Scale Industries in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The case of the writ petitioners is that the State Government in order to attract potential entrepreneurs to set up the industries in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, offered various incentives for the development of Small Scale Industries in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. One of the incentive in regard to supply and consumption of electricity was that the flat rate of Rs 4/- per H.P. would be charged on the sanction connections of the total load only to the extent load is utilized by the concerned Unit, meaning thereby that the PDD was to charge a flat rate of Rs 4/- only per H.P. and this rate was to be charged to the extent of lead which was actually consumed by the concerned Unit. Further according to it, vide Government order No. 76-PDD of 1979 dated 31-03-1979 the tariff was changed and the rate of 18 paise per unit was fixed and the minimum Charge per H.P. was fixed at Rs.4.50 paise. Further according to petitioner, vide Government order No. 85-PDD of 1988 dated 30-03-1988, energy rate in regard to Small Scale Industrial Units has been increased to 40 paise per Unit, Subject to minimum monthly charges of Rs 25/- per H.P./ KVA. The grievance of the petitioner in this regard is that by increasing the energy rate to 40 paise per Unit and by fixing the monthly minimum charges, the PDD is charging from the Small Scale Industrial units. It is stated that the action of the action of PDD in this regard is contrary to the assurances which the state and the PDD had held out to the various Small Scale Industrial Units. It is stated that the petitioners took up the matter with the Government so that the grievance could be sorted out at the Administrative Level, but the State and PDD has not taken any corrective action in this regard. Further, according to the petitioners, the Chief Minister in the meeting held on 01-03-2001 with the representatives of the petitioner-federation, directed a committee to be constituted Comprising of Principal Secretary PDD< and the Principal Secretary Industries & Commerce to the examine the question of grant of relief to be granted to the Industrial Units in regard to the minimum Guaranteed charges and in the regard to continuous Power Supply, but the committee has not taken any decision so far. It is further stated that the PDD has ultimaterally enhanced the tariff rates vide Government Order No. 525-PDD of 1988 dated 21-11-88- and the revised tariff is unreasonable beyond the paying capacity of the member of the petitioner and is thus liable to be quashed. 3. Upon notice of the original writ petition, objection were filed by the PDD, which have been ordered to be treated as counter. It also filed rejoinder reply to the amended writ- petition. In both the counters, the PDD has said that the fixing of tariff and the supply of electricity is a matter which lies within jurisdiction of the PDD and the same is fixed in accordance with the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Electricity Act Smvt. 1997, and Jammu & Kashmir Electricity Rules of 1979. The PDD has further stated that both the Government order which are challenged in the writ petition have been modified. Vide Government Order No. 120-PDD of 1989 dated 22-05-89. By virtue of which tariff already fixed was reduced in respect of Industrial Units/Consumers and further Vide Government Order No. 356-PDD of 1997 dated 24-11-1997 electricity tariff in the state of Jammu & Kashmir has been revised. Further, according to PDD, the tariff for supply of electricity to various consumers is revised from time to time due to rise in its cost of operation and maintenance and also the cost of purchase from other sources. Further, according to PDD one of the condition incorporated in the agreement with the industrial Consumers is regarding charging of minimum guaranteed charges per H.P. It is stated that the tariff was revised from time to time & in sixteen years, i.e. from 1972-1998 tariff has been increased from Rs 4/- to Rs 15/-- per H.P. Up to 20 HP/KVA, Rs 35 /- upto 100 HP/KVA and to Rs 60/- beyond 100 HP/KVA. According to PDD, the Industrial Units in the State are enjoying concessional rates even after revision of the tariff. It has denied that there is any illegality in charging minimum guaranteed charges from the Industrial Units. It is stated that minimum guaranteed charges is being charge from the unit holders in accordance with the agreements entered to with them and in terms of statutory provisions contained in the Jammu & Kashmir Electricity Act, Smvt. 1977. The PDD has also denied that the electricity is not being supplied regularly. It is stated that minimum guaranteed charges is being charge from the unit holders in accordance with the agreements entered to with them and in terms of statutory provisions contained in the Jammu & Kashmir Electricity Act, Smvt. 1977. The PDD has also denied that the electricity is not being supplied regularly. It is stated that the department ensures the supply of power for twelve hours or more to the Industrial Units in the State of J& K and the minimum charges are based on the average supply of power to consumers for 4/5 hours. Further, according to PDD, expect in the case of local faults, the supply is maintained and the faults are repaired as quickly as possible. It is also stated that the power tariff in the State is one of the lowest as compared to the other States and is much less than what it pays to the Northern Grid. According to PDD, the average cost of power is upto 1000 crores and tariff is not even 25% of the same. Thus according to PDD, the grievance of the petitioners in regard to changing of minimum guaranteed charges at the rate which is prevalent at present, is misconceived and it is not possible to give any further subsidy to any category of consumers beyond what is already provided. 4. Mr. G.A. Lone, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the concept of minimum guaranteed charges payable by the Consumers is relatable to continued availability of the power to the Consumers. The suppliers of energy is required to keep the supplies available to Consumers at all times and in case electric energy is not made available to Consumers, then the Supplier cannot be allowed to charge minimum guaranteed charges, which it is not required to the charge from the Consumers. It is submitted that introduction of minimum charge clause in the order issued by the Government is wholly erroneous and beyond the scope of agreement arrived at between the PDD and the Consumers and is against the statutory provision relating to charging of tariff from the Consumers. It is submitted that introduction of minimum charge clause in the order issued by the Government is wholly erroneous and beyond the scope of agreement arrived at between the PDD and the Consumers and is against the statutory provision relating to charging of tariff from the Consumers. Learned counsel further submitted that the provisions of J& K Electricity (supply) Act, 1971 Act No. XI of 1971) does no provide for charging of minimum guaranteed charges and the power cannot exercised by the PDD arbitrarily and that too without the matter in regard to revision of tariff having been dealt with by the Rating Committee. The precise submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the charging of minimum guaranteed charges is beyond the scope of the agreement and the statutory provision and in case this Court finds that the charging of minimum guaranteed charges is legally justified then it has to be reduced proportionately because of erratic and inadequate supply of electricity. The other submission of learned counsel is that the rate per unit is high and excessive and direction is required to be given to the PDD for reducing the same, keeping in view the peculiar conditions prevailing in the valley due to militancy. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at the length and carefully gone through the record of this case. 6. Relating to supply and use of electricity energy. State Government has enacted J & K Electricity Act, Smvt,1997 (1940 A.D.) (Act No. XIV of 1997). Section 2 (c) defines Consumer as any person who is supplied with energy by a license. Section 23 of the Act is charging Section and it provides alternate mode for charging of energy from the Consumer, namely, (a) by the actual amount of energy so supplied or (b) by the electrical quantity contained in the supply, or (c) by such other method as may be approved by the Government. 7. While fixing the tariff under clauses (c) the Government takes into consideration the Consumer™s load factor, or the power factor of his load, or his total consumption of energy during any stated period, or the hours at which the supply of energy is required, Clause (ix) of the schedule appended to the Act provides the method of Charging by the licensee from the Consumers. Clause (x) provides a licensee may charge a consumer minimum charge for energy of such amount and determined in such manner as may be specified by his licence, and such minimum charge shall be payable not with standing that no energy has been used by the Consumer during the period for which such minimum charge is made. Section 53 deals with the recovery of sum recoverable under certain provisions of the Act from the Consumer in respect of the Supply of electrical energy or any sum declared to be recoverable or every fee liability to pay the arrears of electrical energy charges or fees or disputes the correctness of the amount demanded, he may pay the amount demanded from him under protest in writing and may bring a suit in the civil court to the contest his liability and for refund of the amount not due from him. 8. The copy of one of the agreement entered into between the PDD and the members of the Federation has been annexed with the writ petition. Clause (d) of the Agreement provides that the electric current shall be supplied at the rates sanctioned or as revised from time to time by the Government.� Schedule annexed to the Agreement provides the rates for energy charges and the minimum guarantee charge which the Industrial Consumer is to pay in accordance with the installed capacity. It also provides that the Consumer shall pay meter hire at the rate of Rs 10/- per month. 9. The question whether stipulation in the agreement to pay minimum guaranteed charges is valid irrespective of whether energy is consumed or not or whether it is in compatible with statutory powers of the Electricity Department, has come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the various cases. 10. In Bihar State Electricity Board Patna and ors. Vs. M/S Green Rubber Industries and ors. AIR 1990 Supreme Court 699, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that :- the agreement for the supply of electricity by the board with the stipulation to apply minimum guaranteed charges, irrespective of whether energy was consumed or not would be valid and it cannot be determined with the disconnection of supply to the consumer by the Board but only according to the stipulations in the agreement. Considered by the test of the reasonableness the agreement cannot be said to be unreasonable in as much as the supply of electricity to the Consumer involves incurring of overhead installation expenses by the Board which do not vary with the quantity of electricity to a consumer involves incurring of overhead installation expenses by the Board which do not vary with the quantity of electricity consumed and the installation has to be continued irrespective of whether the energy is consumed or not until the agreement comes, to an end. Every contract is to be considered with reference to its object and the whole of its terms and accordingly the whole context must be considered in endeavoring, even though the immediate object of enquiry is the meaning of an isolated Clause. This agreement with the stipulation of minimum guaranteed charges cannot beheld to be ultra vires on the ground that it is incompatible with the Statutory duty. Difference between this contractual element and the statutory duty have to be observed. A supply agreement to a Consumer makes his relation with the Board mainly Contractual. In cases where such agreements are made the term are supposed to have been negotiated between the consumer and the Board, and unless specifically assigned, the agreement normally would have affected the consumer with whom it is made.� 11. In Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board & Ors. (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 263, the Supreme Court held that the purpose of prescribing minimum charges is to ensure that no undue loss is caused due to Electricity Board because the absence of minimum charge is likely to create a tendency in a prospective consumer to have connection for an inflated requirement and having agreed to meet such requirement the Electricity Board would be under an obligation to maintain the supply upto that requirement even if no or very little energy is consumed. 12. In M/S Raymond Ltd. & Another etc. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board & Ors. etc. It 2000 (Suppl. 12. In M/S Raymond Ltd. & Another etc. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board & Ors. etc. It 2000 (Suppl. 3) Sc 39, the stand taken by the consumer that where the supply is not of contracted load and to the extent of the agreed load factor without interruptions so as to cause any disturbance or dislocation of the smooth functioning of the industry, concerned, the obligation under the clause in the agreement providing for the payment of the minimum guaranteed charges would automatically stand snapped and consumer would be relieved of his liability and he can be made answerable only to the extent of energy actually supplied and which has been consumed, was not accepted and their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that : As a matter of general principle, any stipulation for payment of minimum guaranteed charges is unexceptionable, in a contract of this nature wherein, the Board which undertakes generation , transmission and supply of electrical energy has to in order to fulfill its obligation, lay down line and install the required equipment and gadgets and constantly keep them in a state of good repair and condition to render it possible for the consumer to draw the supply required at any and all times. The contract for the supply of electrical energy cannot be treated on per with any other contracts of mutual rights and obligation , having regard to the peculiar problem involved in the generation, transmission and supply which invariably depend upon the vagaries of monsoon as well as short supply to them of the required coal and oil in time and similar other problems over which the Board cannot have any absolute control. Payment of minimum guaranteed charges is necessarily in built in the tariff system of the Board and the reasonableness or legality of the same cannot be considered either in the abstract or in solution for all these aspects. It is for this reason that all the over, the consumer is also made to share the constraints on Board™s economy even during such periods. The minimum guarantee, appears to be not in term of any fixed or stipulated amount but in terms of merely the energy to be consumed. It is for this reason that all the over, the consumer is also made to share the constraints on Board™s economy even during such periods. The minimum guarantee, appears to be not in term of any fixed or stipulated amount but in terms of merely the energy to be consumed. The right, therefore of the Board to demand the minimum guaranteed charges, by the very terms of the language in the contract as well as the one used in the tariff notification is made enforceable depending upon a corresponding duty, impliedly undertaken to supply electrical energy at least to that extent, and not otherwise.� 13. In view of the law settled by the Supreme Court & the Clear provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Electricity Act, 1987 (1940 A.D.) And the Stipulation in the agreement regarding the charging of minimum guaranteed charges the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is beyond the scope of the agreement and the provisions of the J& K Electricity Act, 1987 (1940 A.D. ), is without any foundation. The charging of minimum guaranteed charges is not only contractual but is also statutory and the petitioner cannot question the authority of the PDD to charge minimum guaranteed charges. 14. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that PDD be directed to reduced proportionately the minium guaranteed charges, because there has been erratic & irregular supply of electricity we find from the reading of the writ petition that no proper foundation in this regard has been laid. There are as many as 1127 Industrial Units, on whose behalf writ petition have been filed by the Federation Chamber of Industries, but none of them have pleaded individually as to which the date of the month & the year, the power supply was erratic or inadequate, nor any material has been placed on record that any complaint in this regard was made to PDD by any of them . On the other hand , their is specific averment by the PDD in the counter that the department ensures the supply of power for twelve hours or more and the minimum guaranteed charges are based on four to five hours supply of electricity. 15. In Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Bijoy Mining Company Ltd. and the others (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 202. 15. In Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Bijoy Mining Company Ltd. and the others (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 202. Consumer sought reduction in the minimum guaranteed charges on the ground of electric and inadequate supply of electricity but no application was made for the same to the officers who was specified in the agreement to investigate into the matter, and in such circumstances their Lordship of the Supreme Court held that the consumer is liable to apply minimum guaranteed amount. 16. In Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Allied Refractories (pvt.) Ltd. & Ors. (1996) & Supreme Court cases 491, agreement provided for proportionate reduction of minimum guaranteed amount for non supply of electricity due to disruption by tripping, load sheddings power cuts etc. but the consumer instead of making such application straightway approached the High Court for grant of such relief. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Board to proportionately reduce the minimum guaranteed amount, but in appeal the supreme Court held that the High Court not justified to direct the Board to grant the proportionate reduction and thus the order of the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court. 17. This being the position of law, we are therefore, of the view that in absence of pleading on behalf of the writ -petitioners or any material placed on record in this proportionately the minimum guaranteed charges, cannot be given. 18. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been arbitrary increase in power tariff, is also without any merit. 19. Vide Order No. 76- PDD of 1979 dated 31-03-1979, energy rate per unit was fixed at 18 paise and the minimum charge per H.P. Was fixed at Rs. 4.50 paise. Thereafter there has been no increase in tariff till 1988. It is only vide Government Order No. 85- PDD of 1989 dated 30-03-88, energy rate for small Scale Industrial Units was revised to 40 paise per Unit, subject to a minimum monthly charge of Rs 25/- HP/KVA. This tariff was not found excessive by the Small Scale Industrial Units and various representation were made to the Government. The Government considered the demand of Small Scale Industrial Units & in partial modification of Govt. Order No. 85-PDD of 1988 dated 30-3-88, the Government vide Govt. This tariff was not found excessive by the Small Scale Industrial Units and various representation were made to the Government. The Government considered the demand of Small Scale Industrial Units & in partial modification of Govt. Order No. 85-PDD of 1988 dated 30-3-88, the Government vide Govt. Order No. 120-PDD of 1989 dated 22-05-89 accorded sanction for reduction in the electricity tariff. The Industrial units having a load upto 20 HP were asked to pay only Rs 15/- per K.W. As against Rs 33.50 per K.W. Or Rs 25/- per HP in force at the time of issuance of order No. 356-PDD of 1977 dated 24-11-97 sanction was accorded to the revision of electricity tariff in the state, when small scale Industrial Units with connected load upto 20 HP were asked to pay 59 paise per unit and minimum guaranteed charges was fixed at Rs 22.10 per HP/KVA. Thereafter, in pursuance of cabinet decision No. 119/11 dated 19-08-89, Government order No. 525- PDD of 1998 in Supersession of all previous orders, came to be issued for revision and ratio analisation of power tariff in the state . The revision and rationalization of power tariff was to be implemented in three stages spanning over the period from 1998-99 to 2000-2001. Vide Government Order dated 20-11-88 the small scale Industrial units upto 20HP/KVA load, were required to pay at 90 paise per unit for the year 1998-99, 135 paise per unit for the year 1999-2000 and Rs.2.00 per unit for the year 2000-2001, subject to minimum guaranteed charges at Rs 75.00 per kw per month. However, the tariff which was fixed for the year 2000-2001 has not be enforced and the tariff fixed for the year 1999-2000 is still continuing, meaning thereby that even in the year 2002 the consumers are paying energy charges and the minimum guaranteed charges fixed for the year 1999-2000. 20. It cannot be denied that the energy charge and the minimum guaranteed charges in the State are much lower than in any other State of the Country. The energy cost data shows that the cost of energy of the year 1996-97 per unit in the State was Rs 2.50 paise and by now the cost of energy must have increased manifold, but the consumers in the state are not paying even fraction of what it costs to the state. The energy cost data shows that the cost of energy of the year 1996-97 per unit in the State was Rs 2.50 paise and by now the cost of energy must have increased manifold, but the consumers in the state are not paying even fraction of what it costs to the state. Otherwise also, this Court in exercise of its juridiction under Article 103 of the constitution of J& K cannot lay down at what rate PDD should supply electricity to its consumers. The tariff fixed by the Electricity Department is not open to judicial review, if otherwise reasonable and not arbitrary. The fixation of electricity, tariff therefore,. Is a policy matter for the PDD to decide and the Court has no role to play in fixation of the tariff. 21. In Bihar state Electricity Board & another Vs. M/S Usha Martin Industries & another. AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2489, their Lordships of Supreme Court said that fixing electricity tariff is a matter of policy. It is for the Electricity Department & the State to decide the rate at which Electricity would be supplied, under no circumstances can the Court lay down what should be the proper price & direct Electricity Department to reduce the Tariff. The direction given by the High Court to reduce the tariff was set aside & their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that by giving such direction the High Court clearly exceeded its juridiction & lost sight of the statutory provisions. 22. As already noticed, in the present case the tariff charges in the State being the lowest in the Country, no grievance in this regard can be entertained. 23. Learned Counsel for the petitioners next contended that because of militant activities in the Kashmir Valley there has not been much Industrial activity for the last about a decade and, therefore, PDD should be directed to give some concession in the electricity tariff and also in fixation of minimum guaranteed charges. Against this submission, Mr. A.M. Magrey, learned counsel appearing for the PDD contended that the tariff charged from the small Scale Industrial Units in the State is already on concessional rates and no further concession is permissible. Against this submission, Mr. A.M. Magrey, learned counsel appearing for the PDD contended that the tariff charged from the small Scale Industrial Units in the State is already on concessional rates and no further concession is permissible. He further submitted that during the years from 1990 to 1997, the PDD was not able to realize arrears on account of electricity charges and the Government considering the situation in the valley did not revise the tariff for nearly ten years and also declared amnesty scheme for payment of whole amount of arrears in the electricity charges & in this regard Government Order No. 193-PDD of 1997 dated 29-05-1997 was issued. Copy of the said Government Order has been placed on record, The reading of the said order show that for the payment of electricity accumulated arrears from 01-01-1990 to 31-03-1997 by domestic/commercial consumers, Concessions were given on certain terms and conditions. As per item No. 3 of the said Government Order all Industrial Consumers with a connected/agreemental load upto and including 5 k.w. were asked to apply only 50% of the accumulated arrears for the period from 01-01-1990 to 30-03-1997. It was declared that they would be deemed to have paid the arrears if paid within three months from the date of issuance of said Government Order. The concession was extended till the end of October 1997 and thereafter again it was extended till 31-03-1998. If the members of the Federation failed to avail the concession given under the Amnesty Scheme provided under Government Order No. 193-PDD of dated 29-03-1997, then they themselves are to be blamed for that lapse and no grievance in this regard can now be made by them. 24. Lastly, Mr. G.A. Lone learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that vide sro 566 dated 25-10-1984, the Electricity Duty is to be charged and levied on the electricity which is actually supplied to an Industrial Unit, but unformately under some misconception of law the PDD has been charging electricity duty on the minimum charges fixed on the connected load rather than on the actual load supplied to and consumed by the Industrial Units. Against this Mr. A.M. Margrey, learned counsel for the PDD submitted that electricity duty is charged by the PDD under the J & K Electricity (Duty) Act, 1963, and also in accordance with sro 566 dated 25-10-1984. 25. Against this Mr. A.M. Margrey, learned counsel for the PDD submitted that electricity duty is charged by the PDD under the J & K Electricity (Duty) Act, 1963, and also in accordance with sro 566 dated 25-10-1984. 25. Section 3 of the J&K Electricity (Duty) Act, 1963, provides that there shall be levied and paid to the Government a duty on the energy to be called the ˜Electricity Duty™ at such rate or rates as may be notified by the Government in the government Gazette and such rate or rates shall be calculated in the prescribed manner, Under sub section (1) of section 3, Government in exercise of power conferred in sub section (1) of section 3 of the J & K Electricity (Duty) Act,1963, has issued SRO 566 dated 25-10-1984. The relevant clause for the charge of Electricity Duty in regard to Industrial units provide that the Duty on the energy called the Electricity Duty� shall be lived and paid to the Government at the rate where the energy is supplied to other category of consumers, 22% on the price of energy so supplied in a month as the case may be.� 26. From the reading of the notification dated 25-10-1984, it becomes clear that electricity duty is not chargeable or lieved on the electricity which is actually supplied to the Industrial Unit but is charged on the price of energy, which admittedly includes the minimum guaranteed charges. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Electricity Duty charged by the PDD is in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 3 read with sro 566 dated 25-10-1984 and the contention of learned counsel to the contrary is without any foundation. 27. At this stage, we may add that on 26-09-1988 at the motion hearing of the writ petition in CMP No. 351/1988, following order was passed by the court :- Mr. M.H.Beg, 28. Issue notice, subject to the objections of the other side, respondents are petitioners Industrial Units in terms of Government Order No. 85 -PDD of 1988 dated 30-03-1988 on the condition that they shall be charged electricity rate and electricity duty according to the rates mentioned in the said Govt. Order for the electricity which actually is consumed by them. Issue notice, subject to the objections of the other side, respondents are petitioners Industrial Units in terms of Government Order No. 85 -PDD of 1988 dated 30-03-1988 on the condition that they shall be charged electricity rate and electricity duty according to the rates mentioned in the said Govt. Order for the electricity which actually is consumed by them. The consumption of the electricity shall be recorded in the meters which are installed in the Industrial Units of the petitioners, which shall regularly check by the respondents. This order is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to claim refund, if they ultimately succeed in the writ petition. 29. This order shall give benefit to those of the consumers who are certified members of the petitioner No. 1. Srinagar.- 26-09-1998.� 30. Pursuant to order dated 26-09-1988 all the consumers who are certified members of petitioner No.1 i.e. nearly 1127 are not paying minimum guaranteed charges and the energy charges are being paid on the basis of the tariff of 1988, which was issued vide Govt. Order No. 85-PDD of 1988 dated 30-03-1988. As noticed earlier, the tariff has been revised since 1988 and the consumers are liable to pay the energy charges on the bases of revised tariff from the date it has not been paid. We, therefore, direct the PDD not to show any laxity on recovering the arrears of electricity charges including the minimum guaranteed charges from the defaulting Industrial Units and official of the PDD who is found amiss in discharging his duties in this regards, then not only the disciplinary proceedings would be taken against him but also the amount shall be recovered from his salary. 31. In view of the above, writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs and it is so ordered, costs are assessed at Rs 10000/- to be deposited by the petitioner No. 1 in the Advocates Welfare Fund, Srinagar, with in a period of one month from today, failing which Registrar Judicial Srinagar, shall recover the same by seeking execution of the order without further reference to the Bench. 32. A copy of this Judgment be sent by the Registry to the Registrar Judicial Srinagar, for information and necessary action.