Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. In this batch, there are two sets of writ petitions. Some of the writ petitions have been filed for issuing Writ of Declaration declaring Regulation 5(5) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and the consequential demand as arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal and ultra vires of the Constitution. In the other set of writ petitions, prayer is for issuing a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit additional current consumption deposit. In both the sets of writ petitions, petitioners are consumers of electricity supply, who have availed High Tension connection. Most of the petitioners have set up textile industries and few others have set up other industries. 2. Hitherto, the law relating to supply of electricity was contained in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The latter Act mandated the creation of Electricity Board in different States which had the responsibility of arranging the supply of electricity in the State concerned. Subsequently, with a view to effect reforms, the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 was enacted. Ultimately, in order to consolidate the laws relating to electricity generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity, the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) has been enacted to replace the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998. 3. In exercise of power under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had framed Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity. Clause 15 of such Terms and Conditions contain various provisions relating to current consumption deposit. Under Clause 15.04, the Board had the authority to appropriate a part or whole of the Current Consumption Deposit towards the sum due from the consumer. Clause 15.05 of such Terms and Conditions was to the following effect :- "15.05 The Current Consumption Deposit for High Tension Service connections including those under L.T.IV two part system will be reviewed and refixed once a year in the months of April and May. The average of the current consumption charges for the preceding twelve months prior to the month of April of that year will be arrived at and a sum equal to one and a half times this average will be calculated. The average of the current consumption charges for the preceding twelve months prior to the month of April of that year will be arrived at and a sum equal to one and a half times this average will be calculated. The higher of the two viz., this calculated amount and the initial current consumption deposit to be held will be the revised current consumption deposit. If the available deposit is less than the revised current consumption deposit the balance will be collected as additional current consumption deposit." Clause 19 of such Terms and Conditions relate to Billing and Payment. As per clause 19.05, all bills relating to “High Tension Consumers” have to be paid within eight days from the date of the bill. Such clause also contemplated disconnection, if the amount is not paid within seven days from the expiry of the eight days period allowed. However, as per the clause added by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Permanent B.P.(F.B.)No.144, dated 37. 1999, the consumer was allowed to make payment after the expiry of the eight days, but on or before 25th of the same calendar month on an application made to the Superintending Engineer. This enabling provision was subject to payment of Belated Payment Surcharge (hereinafter referred to as "BPSC") at 3% per month after the expiry period. As already noticed, from Clause 15.05, current consumption deposit was to be made and such sum was equal to 1½ times of the average of the current consumption charges for the preceding twelve months prior to the month of April of the particular year in question. 4. According to the petitioners, such deposit at the rate of 1½ times of the average of the current consumption charges for the preceding twelve months had been envisaged as the cycle of billing was one month and the consumer was required to pay the amount payable within a maximum period of 45 days (1½ times of a month) and, therefore, there was nexus between the amount to be kept as deposit and the amount expected to be payable towards current bill to be raised on monthly basis. 5. 5. While the matter stood thus, after coming into force of the new Act, namely, the Electricity Act, 2003, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission in exercise of power under Section 50 read with Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has framed a Code known as "The Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the Supply Code". Chapter 2 of such Supply Code relates to Electricity Charges ¬Billing and Recovery. Regulation 5 relates to Miscellaneous charges and Regulation 5 (5) relates to additional security deposit, which is extracted hereunder:- "5(5) Additional Security Deposit .(i) The adequacy of security deposit may be reviewed and re-fixed once in a year in case of HT consumers and once in every two years in case of LT consumers taking into account the interest due for credit. Such reviews shall be made in the month of April / May. The rate of interest on the security deposit shall be on the basis of the Commissions directive to the licensees in this regard. .(ii) The adequacy of security deposit shall be based on the periodicity of billing for the respective category. .(a) For the categories of consumer under monthly billing, the security deposit is equivalent to two times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April. .(b) For the categories of consumer under bi-monthly billing, the security deposit is equivalent to three times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months. .(c) For the categories of consumer under half-yearly billing, the security deposit is equivalent to seven times of the average charges per month. (iii) Interest at Bank rate or more as specified by the Commission shall be calculated and credited to the security deposit accounts of the consumers at the beginning of every financial year i.e. April and the credit available including the interest shall be informed to each consumer before the end of June of every year. .(iv) If available deposit is less than the revised security deposit, the balance shall be collected as additional security deposit either through a separate notice or by a distinct entry in the consumer meter card for LT services. Thirty days notice period shall be allowed for the payment. If the payment is not received within the above period of thirty days, the service is liable for disconnection. Thirty days notice period shall be allowed for the payment. If the payment is not received within the above period of thirty days, the service is liable for disconnection. .(v) Where, on review, the amount of security deposit held is found to be in excess of the requirement, the excess shall be adjusted against two future demands for the electricity supplied. Where, after such adjustment in future of two demands, there is balance to be refunded, the refund shall be made by cheque before the due date for payment of the third demand. .(vi) In the event of the consumer failing to pay the licensee any sum that may become due for payment to the licensee on the dates fixed for payment thereof, the licensee may, in addition to and without prejudice to the other rights of the licensee, appropriate a part or whole of the security deposit and interest thereon towards the sum due from the consumer." 6. The main contention raised in all the writ petitions is to the effect that the Electricity Regulatory Commission has arbitrarily fixed the security deposit as equivalent to two times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding 12 months prior to April and there is no justification to depart from the well accepted amount of security deposit envisaged under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 along with the Terms and Conditions which had been pegged at 1½ times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding 12 months. Apart from challenging such enhancement on the ground of arbitrariness, it is also contended that such provision has been made without following the principles of natural justice and without affording any opportunity to the High Tension consumers. In addition to the above two main contentions, which have been putforth by the counsels appearing for different petitioners, Mr. N.L. Rajah appearing for some of the writ petitioners has contended that as per Section 47 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the question of security deposit can be determined only by a Regulation, but, in the present case, the Electricity Regulatory Commission has purported to frame a Code as envisaged under Section 50 of the Act. N.L. Rajah appearing for some of the writ petitioners has contended that as per Section 47 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the question of security deposit can be determined only by a Regulation, but, in the present case, the Electricity Regulatory Commission has purported to frame a Code as envisaged under Section 50 of the Act. It has been submitted by him that since a statutory power is required to be exercised in the manner contemplated in the statute or not at all, in the absence of specific Regulation as envisaged under Section 47, no such additional security deposit is contemplated and the Supply Code contemplated under Section 50 can only lay down various procedures, but cannot lay down any substantive provision affecting the substantive right or creating any liability. Apart from the above, in several writ petitions, a further contention is raised to the effect that as per Regulation 5(5) of the Supply Code, additional security deposit is required to be made on the basis of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding 12 months and since the petitioners in some of the writ petitions had established their industries only a few months before and therefore the average consumption during preceding 12 months from the month of April of the relevant year was not available, there was no occasion for demanding additional security deposit. .7. In most of the writ petitions it has been indicated that textile industry is passing through one crisis or the other and imposition of such unnecessary additional liability at the present juncture is bound to break the back of such textile industry and, therefore, as a matter of sound and economic reform, the Regulatory Commission should have desisted from imposing such burden. It is also contended that assuming such provision is reasonable and had been validly made, it should have no retrospective application and, therefore, it should not have been made applicable to the existing High Tension electricity consumers, who are guided by the existing terms and conditions. 8. On behalf of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, a common counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.No.19034 of 2005, wherein it is indicated that the Commission has got the statutory power to issue the above Electricity Supply Code which is clearly and explicitly given in the above preamble. 8. On behalf of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, a common counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.No.19034 of 2005, wherein it is indicated that the Commission has got the statutory power to issue the above Electricity Supply Code which is clearly and explicitly given in the above preamble. It is further submitted that the commission had duly consulted the State advisory committee constituted under section 88 of the said Act and the Commission had made previous publication of the draft Electricity Supply Code as required under Section 181(3) of the said Act, inviting the comments of the public and the Commission also held public hearings in regard to the said TNERC Electricity Supply Code 2004. The Electricity Regulatory Commission has further relied upon the provisions contained in Section 47 of the Electricity Act 2003 empowering the Regulatory Commission to require any person to furnish reasonable security as determined by the Regulations. It has been highlighted in the counter that Regulation 5 of the Supply Code, which provides for security deposit, is well within the scope of Section 47 of the Act. It is further clarified that the Electricity Board is required to pay interest to the consumer at the rate of 6% on the security deposit which is only in the nature of fixed deposit and is intended to protect the interest of the Board as a security for payment of electricity charges by the consumers. .9. A common counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in W.P.No.17053 of 2007. In such counter it has been stated that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 can be construed as “Regulation” as envisaged under Section 47 read with Section 181 of the Electricity Act and it also possess the character of a Code as envisaged under Section 50. The provisions are not arbitrary. It has been further highlighted that as per the provisions the Board can resort to disconnection of the supply only after expiry of the notice period. As per the Supply Code, the consumers get 7 days time from the date of the bill to make payment and if such amount is not paid, then only the Board is empowered to issue a notice of disconnection and disconnection can be effected only after expiry of 15 clear days. As per the Supply Code, the consumers get 7 days time from the date of the bill to make payment and if such amount is not paid, then only the Board is empowered to issue a notice of disconnection and disconnection can be effected only after expiry of 15 clear days. Thus, the consumer may enjoy consumption for 52 days even without payment and, therefore, making of provision regarding security deposit equivalent to twice the monthly average cannot be construed as arbitrary. 10. On the basis of the averments made in various writ petitions and the reply furnished in the counters and on the basis of the submissions made during the course of hearing, it is evident that main challenge has been mounted on the basis of alleged arbitrariness of the provision. Various counsels appearing for the petitioners almost in one voice have submitted that previous procedure of making security deposit calculated at one and a half time of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding 12 months had a reasonable nexus keeping in view the period available for making a payment and, therefore, there is no justification to make any departure from such system, which has been operating well during the past decade. 11. After giving our anxious consideration to the submission raised, we express our inability to accept such contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. The obvious purpose for making a provision for security deposit is to ensure compliance with the payment schedule and to see that no unnecessary impediment is made on the matter of payment of bill. It is no doubt true that as per the present Supply Code, the Board can issue notice of disconnection after expiry of 7 days period available for payment of the bill. However, the Board has to wait for 15 clear days after issuance of such notice before effecting any disconnection. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsels for the Regulatory Commission as well as the Board, in the process a disconnection can take place only after total period of about 52 days. During the said period of consumption for 52 days, the consumer who has not paid any amount is obviously required to make payment for consumption of such 52 days and moreover such consumer is also required to pay BPSC as contemplated in Regulation 5(4)of the Supply Code. During the said period of consumption for 52 days, the consumer who has not paid any amount is obviously required to make payment for consumption of such 52 days and moreover such consumer is also required to pay BPSC as contemplated in Regulation 5(4)of the Supply Code. Even though the Board can theoretically issue a notice immediately on expiry of 7 days, keeping in view the practical difficulties and administrative exigencies more often than not, issuance of notice of disconnection would be further delayed. In such matters, the amount to be kept as security deposit cannot obviously be weighed in a golden scale. Moreover, the Electricity Board is required to pay interest at the rate of 6% on such security deposit, which is adjusted in every bill and therefore the consumers get some benefit. .12. Having regard to all these aspects, we do not find any reason whatsoever to consider Regulation 5(5) of the Supply Code to be so arbitrary requiring interference by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this connection, it has to be remembered that the Regulatory Commission consists of experts in the field and, therefore, their wisdom is required to be respected by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and unless the High Court considers such a provision to be so arbitrary, which no reasonable man could accept, the Court should be not only slow but should be loath to interfere with such matter. 13. In the above context, it is necessary to notice the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1993 Supp(4)SCC 136 (FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION LTD. v. A.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER), which has been cited by the learned Addl. Advocate General in support of the contention that the provision regarding making a security deposit is valid. The Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, applicable to different States, relating to security deposit or other deposits of similar nature, had posed the followed questions :- "89. We will now proceed to consider the correctness of the above submissions with reference to the following aspects: .(i) Whether Section 49 is bad for want of guidelines. .(ii) The nature of consumption deposit, irrespective of the nomenclature by which it is called. (iii) (a) The liability of the Electricity Board to pay interest. We will now proceed to consider the correctness of the above submissions with reference to the following aspects: .(i) Whether Section 49 is bad for want of guidelines. .(ii) The nature of consumption deposit, irrespective of the nomenclature by which it is called. (iii) (a) The liability of the Electricity Board to pay interest. .(b) Whether the clause in the terms of supply providing for non-payment of interest is unconstitutional or arbitrary. .(iv) The demand for additional consumer deposit — Whether valid?" It was observed :- "100. In B.R. Oil Mills, Bharatpur v. Assistant Engineer ( D ) R.S.E.B., Bharatpur 3 it was observed: (AIR p. 109, headnotes) “Where demand for deposit of cash security for one month’s estimated consumption charges and bank security equal to two months’ estimated charges as contemplated by Regulation 20 read with the Schedule thereto was made by the Electricity Board from a consumer of high tension electricity, the demand could not be said to be unreasonable and the consumer would not be entitled to continuation of the energy under Section 24 of the Electricity Act on his failure to deposit such security, even if no agreement had been entered into between the consumer and the Board after the commencement of high tension supply. Once the supply for electricity had commenced the consumer was bound by the terms and conditions of supply contained in the regulations. Further, in such a case, merely because the Board did not encash or could not encash a small portion of the security deposited in the form of National Saving Certificates before coming into force of the regulations, it could not be said that the demand of cash security in the form of Bank guarantee by the Board under the regulations was unreasonable. Furthermore, the demand of security from the consumer which was in accordance with the regulations framed by the Board could not be said to be unreasonable merely because no interest is paid on the cash security deposited by the consumer.” In other words, the terms and conditions notified under Section 49 must relate to the object and purpose for which they are issued. Certainly, that power cannot be exercised for a collateral purpose. In this view, we hold Section 49 as valid. Nature of Consumption Security Deposit 101. Certainly, that power cannot be exercised for a collateral purpose. In this view, we hold Section 49 as valid. Nature of Consumption Security Deposit 101. Each of the Electricity Boards before us is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Boards are different from licensees. (emphasis supplied) Each of the Boards has framed the terms and conditions of supply. One such condition relates to security deposits. Such a deposit varies from Board to Board. For example, under the terms and conditions notified by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board under Condition 21. 1 the consumer is required to deposit with the Board a sum in cash equivalent to estimated three months’ consumption charges. In the case of Rajasthan, the security is in the form of cash for one month and bank or insurance guarantee for two months. 102. The legislative sanction behind the power of the Board to direct a consumer to furnish security may be examined. It has already been seen that the Supply Act is complementary to the Electricity Act, 1910. Section 26 of the Supply Act states that the Board shall have all the powers and obligations of a licensee under the Electricity Act. And this shall be deemed to be a licence of the Board for the purpose of the Act. Under the regulations framed by the Board in exercise of powers of Section 49 read with Section 79(j) the consumer is only entitled and the Board has an obligation to supply energy to the consumer upon such terms and conditions as laid down in the regulations. If, therefore, the regulations prescribed a security deposit that will have to be complied with. It also requires to be noticed under Clause VI of the Schedule to the Electricity Act that the requisition for supply of energy by the Board is to be made under proviso (a) after a written contract is duly executed with sufficient security. This, together with the regulations stated above, could be enough to clothe it with legal sanction. In cases where regulations have not been made Rule 27 of the Rules made under the Electricity Act enables the adoption of model form of draft conditions of supply. This, together with the regulations stated above, could be enough to clothe it with legal sanction. In cases where regulations have not been made Rule 27 of the Rules made under the Electricity Act enables the adoption of model form of draft conditions of supply. Annexure VI in Clause 14 states that the licensee may require any consumer to deposit security for the payment of his monthly bills for energy supplied and for the value of the meter and other apparatus installed in his premises. Thus, the Board has the power to make regulations to demand security from the consumers. 103. The next question will be: what is the object in demanding security? The deposit though called security deposit is really an adjustable advance payment of consumption charges. The payment is in terms of the agreement interpreting the conditions of supply. This security deposit is revisable from time to time on the basis of average consumption charges depending upon the actual consumption over a period. This is the position under the terms of supply of energy with reference to all the Boards. 104. As a matter of fact, electricity is supplied in anticipation of payment. In almost every case it takes nearly 2 1/2 months for the recovery of the amount before action for disconnection could be taken. We will give one illustration as is in the case of Rajasthan. The following is the billing cycle: .(a) Consumption period - 30 days .(b) Period consumed after taking the meter readings to issue bills - 10 days .(c) Period allowed for payment - 17 days .(d) Notice for disconnecting supply if consumer fails to deposit energy bill in time -7 days .(e) Period taken in actual disconnection after expiry of notice - 10 days Total: 74 days 105. In practice, some time is also taken between the period allowed for payment and the notice of disconnection. At the same time, there is no obligation that the consumer must use only a particular quantum of electricity. He could even consume more than the average consumption. The Board after 2 1/2 months recovers amount for the electricity supplied by it. It could charge late surcharge in case of high-tension tariff after the expiry of the said period. 106. At the same time, there is no obligation that the consumer must use only a particular quantum of electricity. He could even consume more than the average consumption. The Board after 2 1/2 months recovers amount for the electricity supplied by it. It could charge late surcharge in case of high-tension tariff after the expiry of the said period. 106. Thus, it will be clear that the true nature of the transaction in these cases is one of advance payment of charges for consumption of electricity estimated for a period of approximately three months. Such an advance is liable to be made good and kept at the stipulated level from month to month. It is open to the consumer to permit adjustment of the advance in the first instance. Thereafter, he could make good the shortfall in consumption charges and the security deposit before actual disconnection. Actually speaking, it is only after three months the disconnection takes place. Hence, it is like a running current account. 107. The cycle of billing by the Board demonstrates that in the very nature of things, the consumer is supplied energy on credit. The compulsory deposit in the context of billing cycle is hardly adequate to secure payments to the Board by the time the formal bill by the Board is raised on the consumer. In one sense, the consumption security deposit represents only a part of the money which is payable to the Board on the bill being raised against the consumer. Thus, the Board secures itself by resorting to such deposit to cover part of the liability. " 14. In our considered opinion, what was observed by the Supreme Court in the context of Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 is complete answer to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. 15. Next contention is to the effect that while framing Regulation / Supply Code, the Regulatory Commission has not followed the principles of natural justice and has not given any opportunity to the consumers. 16. Such contention is not tenable for several reasons. First of all the function exercised by the Board while framing Regulation is a delegated legislation and, therefore, we do not see the requirement of following any particular principle of natural justice. 16. Such contention is not tenable for several reasons. First of all the function exercised by the Board while framing Regulation is a delegated legislation and, therefore, we do not see the requirement of following any particular principle of natural justice. Apart from the above, it has been asserted by the Regulatory Commission that, in fact before framing the Regulation / Supply Code, wide publicity has been given and various objections have been invited and different classes of consumers had been given opportunity and, therefore, factually the assertion that principles of natural justice had not been followed is not correct. The second contention is therefore not acceptable. 17. Third contention is to the effect that consumers, which were following the existing terms and conditions as per the provisions contained in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, cannot be prejudicially affected by the Regulation made in 2004 and such Regulation should be made applicable to the future consumers and not the existing consumers. In other words, it is contended that Regulations shall not have any retrospective effect. .18. In our considered opinion, such contention is only to be stated to be rejected. The Regulation does not purport to affect adversely the rights and liabilities of the consumers before the date of coming into force. On the other hand, as per the Regulation, for supplying electricity, certain conditions are being imposed to be applicable in future. The condition relating to deposit only means that for availing continued supply, the consumer is required to comply with certain additional conditions. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the Regulation has any retrospective effect, though in a limited sense, it can be said that it is having a retro-active effect that the past consumers for the future consumption of electricity are required to follow the conditions in future. 19. Apart from the above contentions unanimously putforth by all the counsels appearing for the petitioners, namely, Mr. Palani Selvaraj, Mr.R.S. Pandiyaraj, Mr. 19. Apart from the above contentions unanimously putforth by all the counsels appearing for the petitioners, namely, Mr. Palani Selvaraj, Mr.R.S. Pandiyaraj, Mr. Kamalanathan, Mr.N.L. Rajah., Mr.R.S. Pandiyaraj appearing for several writ petitioners has vehemently contended that as per the provisions contained, security deposit at double the rate of monthly average consumption during the preceding 12 months is only contemplated to be taken and, therefore, in respect of consumers who had after taking connection had consumed electricity for a period of less than 12 months, no such additional security deposit need be taken as such security deposit should be taken only on the basis of monthly average during preceding 12 months. 20. In our considered opinion, such a contention misses the entire point relating to the reason for which additional security is insisted upon. Such additional security has been insisted upon as clarified by the Supreme Court, for the purpose of ensuring payment of charges, it is no doubt true that the Board has the power and discretion and nay, even duty to disconnect the electricity supply if there is failure to pay the amount in time, but before disconnection or even after disconnection the Board is also required to ensure that the amount payable to the Board is paid and for the aforesaid purpose only the security deposit is insisted upon. The amount of security is only twice the amount of the monthly average consumption and for the purpose of finding out such average consumption, last preceding 12 months has been taken into account, but it does not mean that before completion of such 12 months period no additional security can be insisted upon. If such a literal meaning is given, the entire purpose for insisting upon furnishing of security would be frustrated. Therefore, such literal interpretation is to be avoided. At any rate, even otherwise, this contention is of no live interest in the sense that all those petitioners, who had raised such question, had not made the security deposit because of various stay orders passed and by now the monthly average consumption during 12 months preceding April is available, which can form the basis for deposit of additional security as contemplated in such Regulation. .21. The last, but most interesting as well as attractive contention has been raised by Mr.N.L. Rajah. .21. The last, but most interesting as well as attractive contention has been raised by Mr.N.L. Rajah. He apart from reiterating the submissions made by others, has submitted that the impugned Supply Code purports to be one under Section 50 of the Act and under Section 50, specific reference has been made to the aspects on which a Code is contemplated, but there is no reference to furnishing of security in Section 50. On the other hand, there is only reference to furnishing of Security in Sections 47 and 181 of the Act. It is therefore submitted by him that when there is specific reference to Sections 47 and 181 and there is absence of such reference in Section 50, it must be interpreted that the Legislature never intended to confer power on the Regulatory Commission to frame a Code relating to security deposit. In this connection, Mr. Rajah has referred to the commentary of Mr.G.P. Singh on Interpretation of Statutes at Page No.743. 22. It is not disputed and in fact from the materials on record it is apparent that the Supply Code has been specifically framed and laid before the Assembly as contemplated in Section 47 as well as in Section 181 of the Act. In other words, even though the nomenclature is Supply Code, the more stringent procedure for framing the Regulation has been followed and in fact there is also a specific reference to Section 181, which is the Regulation making power. In the preamble, there is not only reference to Sections 50 and 181, but also to all other powers available under the Act. In such a situation, we have no hesitation in accepting the contention raised by the learned Addl. Advocate General for the Electricity Board as well as Mr.R.S. Jeevarathinam for the Regulatory Commission that the Code framed can be considered not only to be a Code, but also to be a Regulation in respect of all the matters which are required to be framed by way of Regulation to the extent such provisions have been made. While making a Regulation, many of the matters covered under Section 50 can be made. While making a Regulation, many of the matters covered under Section 50 can be made. In the present case, the procedure adopted is that of making Regulation and the matters come not only under Section 47, but also under Section 50, it can be said that the ultimate Supply Code is only a hybrid of Regulation as well as the Code. Therefore, the contention raised by Mr.N.L. Rajah is of no avail. 23. Apart from the above contentions raised in several writ petitions, additional challenge has been mounted on the ground that those petitioners, who had established Wind Mills to generate electricity were consuming the energy manufactured by themselves and, therefore, there cannot be any justification for insisting upon such deposit so far as they are concerned. 24. So far as the Wind Mills are concerned, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Electricity Board has very fairly conceded that the decision rendered by the Electricity Regulatory Commission in 2006 is accepted and, therefore, such writ petitions can be allowed to that extent and in terms of the order of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission. 25. For the aforesaid reasons, W.P.Nos.16173, 16174, 16188, 16983, 17053, 17104, 17105, 18382, 18509, 18510, 18382 and 18618 of 2007 filed by the petitioners who had established Wind Mills and consuming electricity generated by themselves are allowed to the extent indicated on the submission made by the learned Addl. Advocate General. The other writ petitions filed challenging the Regulation and enhancement of additional security deposit are dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. After pronouncement of this judgment, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners made a request to make payment of additional security deposit as demanded by the Board in instalments. We have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General in this regard. The petitioners, who are to make necessary additional security deposit, are permitted to make such deposit in seven equal instalments, the first of which shall commence from 30.9.2007 and other instalments shall be paid by the end of each succeeding month, i.e., till 33. 2008.