Judgment :- Markandey Katju, C.J. 1. Heard Mr.S.Rajeswaran, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.C.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. 2. The writ appeal has been filed against an interim order of a learned single Judge dated 19.7.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.22978 of 2005. 3. The writ petition was filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in his letter No. SE/ Mettur/EDC/ HT/ASST.2/F. HTSC.NO. 110/D/ 2005 dated 6.7.2005 quash the same and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner industry having HTSC No.110 to pay arrears of consumption charges of Rs.35,03,246/- in 10 monthly instalments with Belated Payment Surcharge (Interest). 4. By the impugned interim order, the learned single Judge passed an order directing payment of 50% of the impugned demand within four weeks and the remaining amount was stayed. 5. It is well settled that a writ of certiorari lies when there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record vide, Nagendra Nath Bora Vs. Commissioner, AIR 1958 SC 398 (412), Ambika Mills Limited Vs. Bhatt, AIR 1961 SC 970 (973), Union of India Vs. Ghaus Mohd., AIR 1961 SC 1526 , Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 , Custodian of Evacuee Property Vs. Adbul Shakoor Khan, AIR 1961 SC 1087 (1094), Provincial Transport Services Vs. State Industrial Court, AIR 1963 SC 114 , etc. When no error of law has been pointed out, no writ of certiorari can be issued. This is the well settled principle, but we are distressed to note that it is often being followed in the breach, by adopting an over liberal approach. 6. Judges of the High Court are also subordinate to the law and have to follow the well settled principles of writ jurisdiction. With respect we would like to say that it is not open to a High Court Judge to pass whatever order he likes in writ jurisdiction. There are well settled principles for exercise of writ jurisdiction, and a writ cannot be issued on grounds of sympathy alone. In this case no error of law apparent on the face of the record nor violation of any law has been pointed out by the writ petitioner, and yet the writ petition has been entertained and an interim stay of all further proceedings was granted on payment of 50% of the demand. 7. In this case no error of law apparent on the face of the record nor violation of any law has been pointed out by the writ petitioner, and yet the writ petition has been entertained and an interim stay of all further proceedings was granted on payment of 50% of the demand. 7. We are of the opinion that the writ petition itself was not maintainable since no error of law apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out. 8. In Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited Vs. Millenium Business Solutions Limited, 2004 (5) CTC 689 (vide paragraph – 7) a Division Bench of this Court held that no writ lies for merely fixing instalments. We agree with this view. 9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner prayed for a direction that the electricity consumption charges may be allowed to be paid in instalments. We have repeatedly held that in a writ petition the High Court has no power to fix instalments, particularly when no error of law apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out. We are also of the opinion that if no error of law or violation of law has been shown by the petitioner it is not open to the High Court to grant time for making payment of the impugned demand. We are of the opinion that however much sympathy the Court may have with the writ petitioner, yet unless the petitioner can show an error of law apparent on the face of the record or violation of law, this Court cannot interfere. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent in this appeal viz., M/s.Krishna Alloys has submitted that in view of the Rule 22(8) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, which has been framed under Section 50 read with Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the respondent has a right to get the facility of payment in instalments. 11. It may be noted that Rule 22 is in Chapter – III of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code which relates to restoration of supply of electricity after it has been disconnected. What the writ petitioner wants is instalments regarding current payments i.e., regular monthly current consumption charges. 11. It may be noted that Rule 22 is in Chapter – III of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code which relates to restoration of supply of electricity after it has been disconnected. What the writ petitioner wants is instalments regarding current payments i.e., regular monthly current consumption charges. As per Rule 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, bills are payable within 7 days of the date of current consumption bill without the levy of belated payment surcharge, and in default the supply is liable for disconnection after issue of 15 days notice. In our opinion, the respondent – company is liable to pay the same within the due date if it wants continuity of electricity supply, and there can be no question of granting time or instalments for making that payment. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant – Electricity Board that the Electricity Board cannot permit regular current consumption charges to be paid in instalments when the supply of electricity was made on credit basis. Rule 22(8) has no application in this case as the present case is not one where electric supply to the writ petitioner was disconnected. 12. Moreover, Rule 22(8) cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read along with Rule 22(4) which states:- “In the case of service connections, which have been disconnected, the licences shall have the power to allow instalment payments of all arrears in deserving cases†. The words “in deserving cases†clearly indicate that the Electricity Board is not bound to grant the facility of instalments, rather it is in its discretion to grant it or not. 13. Hence, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant – Electricity Board that the learned single Judge ought not to have passed the order of interim stay of 50% of the amount demanded. A huge amount is due from the respondent – company and this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such cases. There is no provision in the electricity laws to grant payment of regular monthly current consumption charges in instalments. 14. A huge amount is due from the respondent – company and this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such cases. There is no provision in the electricity laws to grant payment of regular monthly current consumption charges in instalments. 14. Of course, it is open to the appellant in this appeal to consider the writ petitioner’s prayer for grant of some time to make payments, but that is a matter in the entire discretion of the appellant, and it is not for this Court to pass any direction in this connection. Any such direction passed by the Court in this connection will be wholly illegal and uncalled for, for the reason already stated above. Writ Petition No.22978 of 2005 is dismissed. Writ Appeal No.1904 of 2005 is allowed, and the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 19.07.2005 is set aside. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.25048 of 2005 and W.A.M.P.Nos.3497 and 3498 of 2005 are closed. No costs.