Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. This public interest litigation has been preferred by the petitioner, Voice Consumer Care Council, for issuance of a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the authorisation and reimbursement of electricity tax from the consumer under Section 6 as inconsistent with Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as Electricity Act, 2003), insofar as it does not authorise incidence and levy of tax on the consumer and, consequently, to declare sub-section (2) to Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003 and demanding tax cumulatively against G.O. Ms. No.53 read with Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption of Electricity Act, 2003, as illegal, violative of Article 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India. 2. According to the petitioner, it is a voluntary non-political consumer organisation engaged in taking up number of public causes affecting large public interest of great constitutional importance. It is challenging the levy of electricity tax on the "domestic consumer" for the first time u/s 3 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and for enabling the electricity board to reimburse the tax from the consumer in G.O. Ms. No.56 (Energy) B1 dated 13th June, 2003, in notification No.II (2)/EGY/415 (b-8)/2003, which according to it is contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 and the scope of the charging section u/s 12 of Electricity Act, 2003. The case of the petitioner is that, till 31st Aug., 2003, there was no tax on the sale or consumption of electricity imposed against domestic consumers and the low tension category. Taxes were however levied against licensees and high tension consumers for the first time, pursuant to Act 12 of 2003, which came into effect on 19th May, 2003. Subsequently, the electricity board, by G.O. Ms. No.53 dated 13th May, 2003, has been authorised to recover tax from the domestic consumer at the rate of 5% of the tariff charges. 3. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner also raised the question of validity of Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003, on the ground that the same is violative of Articles 265 and 266 of the Constitution of India. 3. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner also raised the question of validity of Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003, on the ground that the same is violative of Articles 265 and 266 of the Constitution of India. The following submissions were made by the learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing Sections 3 and 6 of Electricity Act, 2003 :- a) If the electricity board is not paying tax to the State, it cannot collect tax from the consumers; b) In absence of Presidential assent, no tax could be recovered and in the present case no assent of the President has been obtained while enacting the provisions under Electricity Act, 2003; c) Section 3 (2) read with Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Rules, 2003, authorising deduction of Tax by the authority is violative of Art. 265 of the Constitution of India; d) The collection of such tax by electricity board is violative and contrary to Art. 266 of the Constitution of India; e) The electricity board or the State Government has no power to assert the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission Act by challenging the definition of tariff against the general practice ; and f) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 8 and G.O. Ms. No.53, any notification No.II (2)/EGY/415 (b-8)/2003, dated 16th June, 2003, that specifically stated that the tax portion should be shown separately, the Boards demand of the same as tariff charge as a whole is violative of the said rule. Learned counsel also referred to different provisions of Act, 2003, Articles 288, 266 and List-II of 7th Schedule, particularly Entry 53, which is not required to be discussed for the present in view of the stand taken by the respondents and noticed hereunder. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner represents the domestic consumers. So far as tax levied on domestic consumers is concerned, just after filing of the writ petition, having noticed the grievance, the State Government, vide G.O. Ms. No.77 energy (B1) dated 17th Sept., 2003, has withdrawn such tax from the purview of domestic consumers by granting exemption. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner represents the domestic consumers. So far as tax levied on domestic consumers is concerned, just after filing of the writ petition, having noticed the grievance, the State Government, vide G.O. Ms. No.77 energy (B1) dated 17th Sept., 2003, has withdrawn such tax from the purview of domestic consumers by granting exemption. The Notification reads as follows :- "In exercise of powers conferred by Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003 (Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts the domestic consumers from payment of electricity tax payable under the said Act on electricity sold for domestic consumption with effect from 17th September 2003." According to the counsel for the respondents, in absence of any such levy of tax on the domestic consumer, the present writ petition for the benefit of domestic consumer has become infructuous. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner, while accepted that the part of the prayer has become infructuous, submitted that the question of validity of Section 6 requires determination. .5. We have noticed the contention raised by the parties, provisions referred, Government Orders issued from time to time and the recent Supreme Court decision in Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. - Vs – Electricity Inspectorate and ETIO & Others reported in 2007 (3) CTC 273. In the said case, the validity and application of Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption and Sale of Electricity Act, 2003, fell for consideration before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while noticed the earlier Acts, namely, Tamil Nadu Electricity Duty Act, 1939 and Tamil Nadu Electricity (Taxation and Consumption) Act, 1962 and as repealed by Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption and Sale of Electricity Act, 2003, considered the question of the validity of the different provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. At paragraph 164, while dealing with clause (12) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court held that the same would have nothing to do with the construction of Entry 53 of List-II of the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India. 6. Similar argument is advanced in the present case with regard to the applicability of Article 265 of the Constitution read with Article 288. 6. Similar argument is advanced in the present case with regard to the applicability of Article 265 of the Constitution read with Article 288. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court, having noticed such argument, held that Article 288 has no application in the Electricity Act, 2003. (See paragraphs 65 to 70). The constitutional scheme and the validity of Electricity Act, 2003, while dealt with in detail, the Supreme Court held that State of Tamil Nadu has legislative competence to legislate Electricity Act, 2003, and does not suffer from any colourable exercise of power. The State having not overstepped its limits of power, upheld the Act. .7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question whether the provisions in question is violative of Article 266 of the Constitution of India has not been gone into by the Supreme Court nor discussed in the said case of Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. (supra), but the Electricity Act, 2003, having been upheld, we are not inclined to re-examine the issue, that too in a case where substantive relief has already been granted by the State in favour of domestic consumers, whom the petitioners represents. We have also noticed the submission made on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that the tax as has been collected from other consumers are not retained by it, but the same is deposited with the State of Tamil Nadu. 8. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, no further relief could be granted in the present case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.