Judgment ( 1. ) Petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition:- "(A) That, this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to refund the amount which is legally due to the petitioner Co., as contained in Annexure P-22 within a specified time limit. (B) That, this Honble Court may further direct the respondents to kindly pay the interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 2% from the first month of default and at the rate of 2-1/2% for the subsequent months, i.e., at the rate at which the Board applied to the defaulting consumers, from the dates since when the amounts became due on the respondent as detailed in Annexure P-22. (C) To pass any suitable writ, order or direction as this Honble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case." ( 2. ) The case of petitioner is that in the year 1993 petitioner decided to install a cement plant at Satna and sought electricity supply of 750 KVA from the respondents. The respondents issued a letter Annexure P-l by which an amount of Rs. 7.87 lacs was demanded by way of security deposit and Rs. 1,72,500/- by way of service connection charges. The petitioner also sought underground cabling of 33 KVA from the electricity line of respondents to the meter of petitioner for which the respondents demanded Rs. 2.46 lacs for the cost of underground cabling. The petitioner deposited Rs. 5.66 lacs towards 50% of the security deposit and the service connection charges on 3-10-1994 and remaining 3.93 lacs of security deposit was deposited by the petitioner on 28-4-1995. On 30-4-1995 after execution of agreement the electricity supply was commenced to the petitioner. On 29-7-1997 the petitioner sought disconnection of the electricity supply and sought refund of security deposit, service connection charges and the amount deposited by the petitioner for underground cabling. When this amount was not refunded to the petitioner, petitioner filed this petition seeking aforesaid reliefs. ( 3. ) The respondents have filed reply in this case in which they admitted that the security amount Rs. 7.87 lacs is refundable to the petitioner and has also admitted that Rs. 2.46 lacs deposited by the petitioner towards the costs of underground cabling is also refundable. The refund of Rs. ( 3. ) The respondents have filed reply in this case in which they admitted that the security amount Rs. 7.87 lacs is refundable to the petitioner and has also admitted that Rs. 2.46 lacs deposited by the petitioner towards the costs of underground cabling is also refundable. The refund of Rs. 1,72,500/- towards service connection charges has been denied as this amount relates to service connection charges. The case of respondents is that petitioner has not deposited cess charges under the M.P. Upkar Adhiniyam, 1981 of Rs. 5,21,39,113/- (upto September, 2002) and the amount which is refunded to the petitioner has been duly adjusted towards the aforesaid dues and no amount is payable to the petitioner. Apart from this reliance is placed by the respondents to various clauses of agreement, the provisions of M.P. Upkar Adhiniyam, 1981 and an order of this Court in W.P. No. 5721/2000, decided on 20-3-2002 and submitted that this petition has no merit and may be dismissed. ( 4. ) Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that:- (i) The amount deposited by the petitioner was in respect of seeking electricity connection of 750 KVA from the respondents and after disconnection of aforesaid electricity connection petitioner is entitled for refund of entire security deposit and cannot be denied the aforesaid refund; (ii) The amount of Rs. 2.46 lacs was deposited by the petitioner towards the costs of underground cabling and this amount is refundable to the petitioner and cannot be adjusted towards any other amount; (iii) The amount of Upkar can be recovered by the respondents in accordance with law, but appropriating the aforesaid amount towards the due of cess is unjustified; (iv) That the General Condition Clause 21 (a) provides that the security amount deposited by the consumer shall be re-turned after the termination of agreement. The amount of Upkar is payable to the State Government and not to the respondents and respondents have no jurisdiction to re- cover the aforesaid amount from the petitioner by adjusting the amount of security deposit, charges of underground cabling and service connection charges. ( 5. ) To appreciate the contention of the parties, it is necessary to look into the certain provision of contract, which reads as under:- "25. ( 5. ) To appreciate the contention of the parties, it is necessary to look into the certain provision of contract, which reads as under:- "25. (a) The Board will as far as possible within fifteen days after the expiration of each calendar month deliver to the consumer a bill of charges stating the number of units supplied to the consumer by the board in accordance with the reading of the said meters and the amount payable therefor according to the tariff applicable together with other charges payable by the Consumer to the Board and the Consumer shall pay same within twenty one days from the date of the bill. The fuel cost adjustment charges as applicable under the tariff will be calculated and incorporated as a part of the bill on the basis of provisional average fuel costs as may be fixed by the Board from time to time; these charges are subject to final adjustment on the basis of average fuel cost for the period of account as certified by the Chief (Finance and Accounts) of the Board. (b) The amount to be billed for each month shall be either the charges enumerated in Clause 25 (a) above or one-twelfth (1/12) of the guaranteed annual minimum under Clauses 21 and 22 whichever is higher, subject to monthly necessary adjustment, without prejudice to Clause 20. 27. (a) The Consumer shall be required to deposit where demanded in cash and or any other form as may be prescribed by the Board a sum not less than one and half months consumption as security for purpose next hereinafter mentioned and shall on the like requisition from time to time replenish such security in the event of the same becoming exhausted or insufficient or otherwise considered inadequate; the Board shall pay interest on the amount deposited in cash towards security at the rate declared by the board from time to time. The Board shall be at liberty at any time and from time to time to appropriate and apply any security so deposited as aforesaid in or towards payment or satisfaction of all or any moneys which shall become due or owing by the consumer to the Board in respect of supply of energy or otherwise under this Agreement, but the provision in this clause contained, shall not prejudice any other remedy to which the Board may be entitled for the recovery of such moneys. The Board shall also be at liberty to enhance the amount of security deposit at any time during the period of this Agreement. (b) If the Consumer fails within thirty days or such other period of notice as may be specified in writing in each case to comply with the terms of any notice requiring him to give any security or to renew or replenish any security mentioned in sub-clause (a) foregoing which may have become exhausted or insufficient, the Board may without prejudice to any other remedy to which the Board is entitled, refuse or discontinue the supply so long as such failure continues." The petitioner has also relied on the General Condition 21 (a) which reads as under:- "21. Security and Agreement: (a) Before commencing the work, the Board may require any consumer to enter into a formal agreement in the form prescribed by the Board and further to deposit security for payment of energy supplied, or alternatively may require him to deposit security only. The deposit shall be accepted in the form of cash only and will be returned after the termination of the agreement." ( 6. ) From the perusal of Clause 21 (a) of the General Condition, it is not in dispute that after the disconnection or termination of agreement petitioner is entitled for refund of security amount and this position has not been disputed by the respondents that after the termination of agreement the aforesaid amount is refundable to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the charges towards underground cabling is also refundable to the petitioner. The only dispute is in respect of service connection charges which are Rs. 1,72,500/-. No such provision is brought to the notice of this Court that the charges recovered by the respondents from the petitioner towards service connection charges are refundable. It is also not in dispute that the charges towards underground cabling is also refundable to the petitioner. The only dispute is in respect of service connection charges which are Rs. 1,72,500/-. No such provision is brought to the notice of this Court that the charges recovered by the respondents from the petitioner towards service connection charges are refundable. The aforesaid charges are being collected to meet out the expenditure of service connection. It is one time charge payable by the consumer to the respondents. The petitioner who applied for the electricity connection was granted the connection and has deposited the aforesaid service connection charges. Thereafter petitioner got electricity connection and consumed the electricity. The charges which have been recovered by the respondents has to be adjusted towards the expenditure of electricity connection. In absence of any specific provision for the refund of service connection charges, after disconnection of electricity petitioner is not entitled for the refund of electricity connection charges. ( 7. ) Now the contention of petitioner, that the respondents should refund the aforesaid amount of security deposit and underground cabling charges is concerned may be seen, the respondents have placed reliance to Clauses 25 and 27 of the agreement. Clause 25 specifically provides that the Board is entitled to recover the bill of charges standing the number of units supplied to the consumer together with other charges payable by the consumer to the Board. Clause 27 also provides that the Board is at liberty to appropriate the amount of security deposit or any money which shall become due to the consumer. The contention of petitioner is that the aforesaid amount of Upkar is not due under the agreement and cannot be adjusted towards the payment of Upkar. ( 8. ) To appreciate the contention of the parties the relevant provisions of M.P. Upkar Adhiniyam, 1981 may be seen. Under Section 3 of Adhiniyam the respondents are under obligation to pay to the State Government within prescribed time and in prescribed manner an energy development cess. Under Rule 4 of the M.P. Electricity Duty Rules, 1949 this amount is to be recovered from the consumer in the bills issued by the respondents. The Upkar is chargeable @ per unit from the consumer. Under Rule 4 of the M.P. Electricity Duty Rules, 1949 this amount is to be recovered from the consumer in the bills issued by the respondents. The Upkar is chargeable @ per unit from the consumer. The harmonious construction of Sections 3 and 4 of M.P. Upkar Adhiniyam, 1981 and Rules 4,5 and 6 of the M.P. Electricity Duty Rules, 1949 castes duty on the respondents to pay Upkar to the Government and to collect it from the consumers. In the circumstances, the amount of Upkar is to be collected by the Board from the consumer. The aforesaid amount is covered within the caption "other charges payable by the consumer" as finds place in Clause 25 (a) of the agreement. In these circumstances the Board is within its power to collect the aforesaid charges from or adjust from security deposit of the petitioner. As the respondents have stated that near about Rs. 5,21,39,113/- is recoverable towards the cess. The correctness of aforesaid amount is disputed by the petitioner and it is stated that in this regard a writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the vires of M.P. Upkar Amendment and Validation Act, 2004. At presently the aforesaid appropriation of the amount by the respondents is only in question. If the petitioner succeeds in the aforesaid petition he shall be entitled as per the directions in that case. Only the question remains whether the action of respondents who have adjusted the aforesaid amount towards the payment of aforesaid Upkar is justified or not. Under the agreement Clauses 25 and 27 the respondents are within their power to appropriate the aforesaid amount towards the payment of liability of petitioner. If the respondents have appropriated the aforesaid amount towards the liability of amount of cess, no fault can be pointed out. Merely the cess is payable to the State Government and not to the Board, would not make any difference as it is preliminary duty of the respondents to pay the cess to the State Government and to recover the amount from the consumer. ( 9. ) In view of aforesaid, there is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed with no order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed.MOHAMMAD