L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioners challenge the action of the respondents in charging an amount of Rs. 86,440. 00 towards interest on payment of Voluntary Loan Contribution by the petitioners. ( 2 ) THE petitioners, 12 in number, claim to be owners of residential flats. It is their case that initially the entire complex was being served through a common-electricity supply connection and thereafter they applied for providing separate connections for each flat. The respondents demanded an amount of Rs. 1,58,000. 00towards Voluntary Loan Contribution in six monthly instalments. The amount so demanded was paid between 1985-1988. Though the respondents agreed to provide electricity connection on payment of 1st instalment of Voluntary Loan Contribution i. e. Rs. 27,000. 00 the connections were provided only on 23-8-1991, that too, in pursuance of a direction given by this Court. They alleged certain facts with regard to the adjustment of the amount on account of revision of tariffs. The present controversy is as regards the claim of Rs. 86,440. 00 towards interest on the belated payment of Voluntary Loan Contribution. ( 3 ) FROM the letter dated 15-2-1995 addressed by the Financial Advisor to the Superintending Engineer, it is evident that the petitioners have deposited Rs. 1,58,000. 00tovvards Voluntary Loan Contribution. The respondents, however, adjusted an amount of Rs. 52,000. 00 towards dues. In addition to the same, they charged interest at 2% per month on delayed payments of Instalments of the Voluntary Loan Contribution. ( 4 ) THOUGH notice was served on the respondents on 22-11-1995, they did not choose to file any counter affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel Sri K. N. Jwala has made all possible efforts to get necessary instructions from the respondents. When the matter came up for hearing on the previous occasion, it was adjourned at his request to enable him to get the instructions. Not to speak of all other modes of communications, the letter dated 15-4-2002 addressed by the learned Standing Counsel to the respondents, a copy of which is placed before the Court, reveals the supine indifference exhibited by the respondents in the matter. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the amount now sought to be charged is towards interest on Voluntary Loan Contribution. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the amount now sought to be charged is towards interest on Voluntary Loan Contribution. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that when the loan itself was voluntary in nature, the question of levying any interest on it does not arise. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that under the terms and conditions whenever any amount is due to be paid to the Board, it carries interest and the present levy cannot be found fault with. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioners were required to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,58,000. 00 towards Voluntary Loan Contribution in certain instalments. It is also not in dispute that they paid the amount. The contention of the petitioners that the respondents have promised to provide the power supply through separate meters within one month from the date of payment of the 1st instalment and that it was only in the year 1991, that too, pursuant to the directions of this Court that the connections were provided, remains un-rebutted. ( 8 ) IN the transaction of a loan, the liability to pay interest, if at all, lies with a person who has availed the loan while repaying the same. Advancement of loan is almost at the discretion of the person who lends the money. No person, either natural or Corporate, has a right to claim any loan from another. Even where the loans are required to be advanced as a condition precedent for availing certain services, the transaction does not loose its character and it continues to be so. Whether the loan is advanced voluntarily or in the course of fulfilment of a condition while availing the service, the liability to pay the interest by the person who advanced the loan does not arise. The reason is that even where it is advanced as a condition precedent for availing the service, the service is extended only on fulfilment of this condition. In the present case also, while the amount in the form of Voluntary Loan Contribution was paid between 1985-88, the electricity connections were extended only in the year 1991. The reason is that even where it is advanced as a condition precedent for availing the service, the service is extended only on fulfilment of this condition. In the present case also, while the amount in the form of Voluntary Loan Contribution was paid between 1985-88, the electricity connections were extended only in the year 1991. Therefore, it is rather astonishing that the respondents have levied interest on the amounts availed by them from the petitioners in the form of Voluntary Loan Contribution though they have provided the connections in question nearly three years after the payment of the last instalment, while their promise was to provide connection on payment of the 1st instalment. It is rather height of arbitrariness. It is nothing but an instance of the respondents taking advantage of the monopoly created in them and they being in a position to dictate terms to the petitioners and other consumers. ( 9 ) IT has been contended that the amounts due to be paid to the respondents shall carry interest at 2% per month. Fairness requires that the respondents also extend same facility in cases where they are under obligation to pay. Since it was found that withholding of the amounts by the respondents was illegal, the amounts so withheld by them shall carry the same interest. ( 10 ) THE levy of an amount of Rs. 86,440. 00 is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to adjust the said amount together with interest towards previous dues, if any, and also the future consumption charges. No costs.