Judgment :- Challenge in this Writ Petition is the levy, demand and collection of Rs.1,21,500/- in the current consumption bill dated 012. 2003 towards belated payment surcharge from the Petitioner. 2. Petitioner Textile Mill is engaged in manufacturing yarn and has service connection in H.T. S.C.No.169. The tariff rates for supply of energy made to various consumers were revised with effect from 012. 2001 by Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 211. 2001 and G.O.Ms.No.96 (Energy) A2, dated 012. 2001. In a public interest litigation filed before the High Court against the tariff revision, stay was granted by the High Court for a period of one month during December, 2001 restraining the Electricity Board from implementation of the tariff revision. Accordingly, the pre-revised rates were adopted in December, 2001. In the mean time, various H.T. Consumers Associations filed several Writ Petitions before the High Court challenging the tariff revision and an order of interim stay was granted during February 2002. 3. By disposing the Public Interest Litigation and Writ Petition filed by the consumer in June 2002, the High Court has upheld the validity of tariff revision and confirmed the same. 4. Bill was issued at the revised rates for July 2002 and the arrears for the period from 04/2002 to 11/2002 was included in 11/2003 current consumption bill. A sum of Rs.1,21,500/- was levied upon the Petitioner towards belated payment of surcharge for the payment of arrears of maximum demand charges. 5. Grievance of the Petitioner is that the High Court has directed the Petitioner to pay arrears of demand charges in ten equal monthly installments and therefore, the question of paying interest or surcharge would never arise and therefore, the demand of surcharge is arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of the order passed by the High Court. 6. Mr. Palani Selvaraj, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that when the High Court has permitted the Petitioner and other consumers to pay the arrears of demand charges in ten equal monthly installments and when the condition was complied with, there is no question of payment of interest or surcharge. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of court to Clause 19.14 of terms and conditions which provides for payments made in installments. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of court to Clause 19.14 of terms and conditions which provides for payments made in installments. 7. In a batch of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, the Division Bench has permitted the Petitioner and others to pay arrears of demand charges accumulated during the period of stay order in ten equal monthly installments along with respective demand from December 2002. According to the Petitioner, he has complied with the order of High Court without default and paid the installments along with respective current bill. 8. Admittedly, the Division Bench has passed the order permitting the Petitioner and other Appellants to pay the accumulated arrears in ten equal monthly installments which the Petitioner is said to have complied with. Clause 19.14 provides for the payments in installments and the 1st Respondent can permit to pay in installments. 9. As per Clause 20.05, where the charges are levied in installments under Clause 19.14, no surcharge is payable on the installments. Clause 20.05 reads as follows:- "Where the charges are levied only in installments under Clause 19.14, no surcharge is payable on the installments remitted according to the schedule of payment. Surcharge is payable on installments paid belatedly. This surcharge will be calculated from the date immediately following the due date of payment of the defaulted installment." Clause 20.05 makes it clear that surcharge is leviable for any belated payment. 10. As per Clause 20.02 of terms and conditions of Supply of Electricity, all charges included in the monthly H.T. charges bill are to be paid within eight days from the date of bill and bills not paid by H.T. consumers within the time stipulated will attract levy of surcharge at 1.5% per month. Because of case pending in the High Court, Board could not raise demand as per the tariff even from 012. 2001. As such the payment of arrears of current consumption charges made belatedly by the consumer consequent on the Court stay and subsequent revision of bill at the revised rates after the dismissal of cases would attract belated payment surcharge from 04/2002 to 11/2002. Since all the appeals were dismissed by the High Court, consumers are to pay belated payment of surcharge. Hence, belated payment of surcharge for the month 04/2002 to 11/2002 of Rs.1,21,500/- was included in 11/2003 current consumption bill. .11. Since all the appeals were dismissed by the High Court, consumers are to pay belated payment of surcharge. Hence, belated payment of surcharge for the month 04/2002 to 11/2002 of Rs.1,21,500/- was included in 11/2003 current consumption bill. .11. Though High Court has permitted the Petitioner to pay arrears by installment that would not wipe away the liability to pay surcharge on the belated payment. In (1979) 4 SCC 560 (Adoni Ginning Factory and others v. Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board, Hyderabad and others), Electricity Board succeeded before the Division Bench of High Court, the injunction by the Supreme Court did not restrain the operation of G.O. Observing that though Board was restrained from realizing the arrears, it could claim surcharge of one per cent per mensem as provided in the agreement and as mentioned in the Bill, the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows:- ." ........ Surcharge was claimed for the period during which the appeals were pending in the Supreme Court since the Supreme Court did not stay the operation of G.O. No.187 but only restrained the Board from collecting the arrears. That no stay of G.O.No.187 was ever intended to be granted by the Supreme Court is also clear from the circumstance that there was no injunction restraining the Electricity Board from collecting future charges at the enhanced rates. The Electricity Board was, therefore, right in claiming surcharge for the period during which the appeals were pending in the Supreme Court and not claiming surcharge for the period during which the writ petitions and writ appeals were pending in the High Court." .12. In (1996) 1 SCC 597 (Kerala State Electricity Board v. M.R.F. Limited), High Court has struck down the revisions of tariffs. Setting aside the order of High Court, Supreme Court has upheld the upward revision. Observing that Appellant/Electricity Board had suffered financial loss because of the erroneous decision of the High Court and put back to the original position as prevailed prior to passing of the High Courts order, the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:- ."In the instant case, the respondent-Company and other consumers though have liability to pay on the basis of revised tariffs, they had not paid on such basis because of erroneous decision of the High Court. The respondent-Company is an ongoing business concern and must have utilized the money, saved on account of the decision of the High Court, gainfully in its commercial activities. Similarly, other consumers have gainfully utilized the amount saved for being not required to pay on the basis of revised tariffs. The Board had to suffer financial loss because of the said erroneous decision of the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, it will be lawful, conforming to equity and well-established principle of restitution for the Board to claim interest at 18% on the unpaid portion of the Bill drawn on the basis of revised tariffs. The Company had agreed to pay interest at 18% on the bills if not paid when it became due and payable. Even otherwise, claim of 18% interest per annum also appears to be just and proper." 13. Observation of the Supreme Court in (1997) 5 SCC 772 (Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. and others v. U.P. State Electricity Board and others) would apply to the facts of the present case. In the said decision, there was interim stay of Government order / notification and subsequently, Petition/Appeal was dismissed. Observing that stay order does not mean that order or notification has been wiped out from its existence, in Kanorias case, the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows:- " As has been pointed out by S.C. Agrawal, J., speaking for a three Judge Bench in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association (1992) 3 SCC 1: "While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence." " ...... The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence." " ...... It is equally well settled that an order of stay granted pending disposal of a writ petition/suit or other proceeding, comes to an end with the dismissal of the substantive proceeding and that it is the duty of the court in such a case to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim orders of the Court. Any other view would result in the act or order of the court prejudicing a party (Board in this case) for no fault of its and would also mean rewarding a writ petitioner in spite of his failure. We do not think that any such unjust consequence can be countenanced by the courts. As a matter of fact, the contention of the consumers herein, extended logically should mean that even the enhanced rates are also not payable for the period covered by the order of stay because the operation of the very notification revising/enhancing the tariff rates was stayed. Mercifully, no such argument was urged by the appellants. It is ununderstandable how the enhanced rates can be said to be payable but not the late payment surcharge thereon, when both the enhancement and the late payment surcharge are provided by the same notification – the operation of which was stayed." 14. Though in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, High Court has permitted the Petitioner to pay the arrears in installments, Petitioner is liable to pay surcharge for belated payment. It is pertinent to note that accepting the Petitioner, all other consumers who have been permitted to pay consumption arrears of revised tariff have paid the surcharge of belated payment without any demur. Hence, Petitioner cannot challenge inclusion of surcharge for the belated payment in 11/2003 current consumption bills. 15. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is also dismissed.