Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. Writ Petition No.13445 of 2001 was preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner-M/s.South India Small Spinners Association, the appellant herein against the TNEBs proceedings (F.B.No.13--Accounts Branch), dated 19. 2000, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the said proceedings and to direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein, to demand for the deposit of the current consumption charges on 45 days basis. Writ Petition No.13445 of 2001 having been dismissed by the impugned order dated 212. 2001, giving reference to a judgment passed in a similar case, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner-Association. 2. According to the writ petitioner-Association, it has 471 members who are the low tension (for short, LT) consumers of electricity. The members had deposited certain amount as "Earnest Money" under Clause 14 of the Terms and Conditions of Electricity Supply. The current consumption for L.T. service connection was to be reviewed and refixed once in two years in the months of April/May. In addition to the Earnest Money Deposit (for short, the EMD), as per Clause 15.06 of the Terms and Conditions of the Electricity Supply, the average of the current consumption charges for the preceding 12 months prior to the months of April/May of the year, is to be arrived at and a sum equivalent to three times of such average is calculated. The higher of the two, i.e. calculated amount and the initial deposit to be held, is to be revised as current consumption deposit. If the available deposit is less than the revised current consumption deposit, the balance will have to be calculated as additional current consumption deposit. 3. The further case of the appellant-writ petitioner-Association is that the second respondent-Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (for short, the TNEB), knowing fully well of the crisis situation existing in the textile industry earlier revised the power tariff and increased the financial burden of the textile mills, which was protested. Earlier, the quantum of the electricity, having been not measured in appropriate manner, the writ petitioner-Association preferred Writ Petition No.17008 of 1999 to measure the quantum of electricity in terms of Kilo Watts as per the Boards Proceeding in B.P. (F.B).No.178, dated 29. 1998 and to assess the load to the factory of the members of the writ petitioner-Association in Kilo Watt basis instead of Horse Power basis. 1998 and to assess the load to the factory of the members of the writ petitioner-Association in Kilo Watt basis instead of Horse Power basis. Writ Petition No.17008 of 1999 was allowed by this Court on 7. 2000, which reached finality in the absence of any appeal against the same. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-Association submitted that the Association, through the notice to the respondents, earlier asked the respondents that the security deposit was computed for L.T. consumers on the basis of 90 days charges, whereas, the same was computed for High Tension (for short, H.T) consumes on the basis of 45 days charges. This caused loss to the L.T. consumers and thereby, the writ petitioner-Association was called upon by the respondents to raise the Bill every month, instead of once in two months. The grievance of the writ petitioner-Association is that the respondents, while raising the Bill for H.T. services every month, in respect of L.T. services, it was calculated once in two months. It is informed that the TNEB, by proceedings in Permanent B.P.(F.B).No.13, Accounts Branch, dated 19. 2000, had clarified Clause 15.05 and Clause 15.09 of the Terms and Conditions of the Electricity Supply. By the said proceedings dated 19. 2000, the TNEB fixed the current consumption deposit in a manner as shown by the writ petitioner-Association in the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition No.13445 of 2001. It is alleged that while fixing the current consumption deposit, the TNEB has not taken into account the Terms and Conditions of the Electricity Supply, particularly Clauses 14 and 15, which contemplates the demand on current consumption deposit. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-Association, the TNEBs proceedings dated 19. 2000, is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, as it has not taken into consideration the relevant facts. 5. Though the aforesaid submissions have been made on behalf of the writ petitioner-Association, but they have failed to make out a case as to how the TNEBs Proceedings, dated 19. 2000, is arbitrary. Admittedly, the H.T. consumers are a class by themselves and cannot be compared with the L.T. consumers, who are also separate class by themselves. Not only the L.T. consumers are charged in a different manner, the calculation is also made in a different way. 2000, is arbitrary. Admittedly, the H.T. consumers are a class by themselves and cannot be compared with the L.T. consumers, who are also separate class by themselves. Not only the L.T. consumers are charged in a different manner, the calculation is also made in a different way. For the said reason, if the security deposit is computed for H.T. consumers on the basis of 45 days charges, the L.T. consumers cannot claim that their security deposit should be also computed on such basis, both being separate class by themselves. 6. The main grievance of the writ petitioner-Association is that the security deposit of the L.T. consumers is to be calculated not on the basis of 90 days charges, but on the basis of 45 days, but such submission has no legs to stand, as it is open for the respondents 2 and 3-TNEB to ask its consumers to deposit certain amount as security deposit equivalent to charges of certain days. Merely because the L.T. consumers will be depositing 90 days charges at a time as a security deposit, which otherwise could have been deposited in two equal instalments of 45 days, it will not render the impugned TNEBs proceedings passed by the TNEB as illegal. 7. We find that similar writ petitions were considered by the single Judge/Division Bench of this Court and they were dismissed. Reference to one such writ petition has been given by the learned single Judge in the impugned order dated 212. 2001 in W.P.No.13445 of 2001. 8. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the relief as sought for in the Writ Appeal, nor inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.