JUDGMENT : K.A. Puj, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 8th September, 2006 passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 3rd September, 2004 issued by the Deputy Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Umargam and communication dated 19th October, 2006 issued by the Deputy Engineer, Dakshin Gujarat Electricity Company Limited, Umargam. The petitioner has also sought for declaration that the respondents - authorities have no authority to take any decision contrary to the decision of State Government treating the petitioner - Unit as an Industry as per the Tourism Policy of the State Government and to arrive at a different conclusion or decision as the respondents - authorities have not been vested with such power. The petitioner has further prayed for declaration that the petitioner - Unit having been given the status of industries by various authorities of the State Government under the Tourism Policy of the State Government, it is not having power, authority or purview of the authorities of the respondent - Corporation to take any contrary decision. 2. This Court has issued notice on 5th December, 2006 and the petition was admitted on 3rd April, 2007. At the time of admission of the petition, this Court has passed an order observing therein that the petitioner would pay electricity charges in accordance with the bill submitted to it by the respondent - company, without prejudice to the rights and contentions that may be available to the petitioner at the time of final hearing. The Court has also clarified that in the event, the petitioner succeeds in the petition, the amount of difference would be adjusted or it may be refunded to the petitioner. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company duly registered and incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter alia, engaged in the business of running Club and Resort in the name of Umbergaon Club & Resort Limited on Umbergaon - Sanjan Highway. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company duly registered and incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter alia, engaged in the business of running Club and Resort in the name of Umbergaon Club & Resort Limited on Umbergaon - Sanjan Highway. The petitioner is a Resort and Club which is covered under the Tourism Development Scheme and Policy framed by the Government of Gujarat and accordingly, the petitioner was given a certificate dated 30th August, 1993 by the Industries Commissioner, Government of Gujarat as a Small Scale Unit. The petitioner has applied for supply of electricity which was given to the petitioner on 28th August, 1991. The said electricity connection was given as "Industrial Unit" being hotel covered under the provisions the Tourism Industries. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Government of Gujarat, in order to attract the tourists to the State and development and encourage the tourism industry in the State, had announced a scheme which is known as Gujarat Tourism Development Scheme, 1991 and other schemes framed from time to time. In the said scheme, the places of area of development of Clubs and Resorts, Hotels and Motels etc. are earmarked in the Appendix to the said Scheme. There are about 50 such places in the State of Gujarat and umbergaon is one of the places earmarked by the State Government for the purpose of Tourism Industries. The said scheme came into force with effect from 1st January, 1991, which remained in force till 1996 and revised thereafter. As per this scheme, the State Government decided to grant 100% sales tax exemption on food and beverages served either in hotels or motels, 50% sales tax exemption to the motels situated on the State Highways. Likewise, exemption in payment of luxury tax was also granted to the extent of 50% and exemption of electricity duty to the extent of 40% and 25% as prescribed in the policy. These exemptions were extended to hotels and motels. 5. Likewise, exemption in payment of luxury tax was also granted to the extent of 50% and exemption of electricity duty to the extent of 40% and 25% as prescribed in the policy. These exemptions were extended to hotels and motels. 5. Since the scheme of 1991 was not given much publicity on reconsideration, the State Government had decided to encourage the Entrepreneurs to establish hotels and motels and, therefore, Director of Tourism, Government of Gujarat addressed a letter dated 30th May, 1995 to the petitioner and requested the petitioner to give suggestion so as to enable the State Government to have comprehensive policy for the development of Tourism Policy in the State of Gujarat. By consequence of the revision of policy, Energy and Petrochemicals Department had issued Notification dated 28th September, 1998. 6. In light of the aforesaid policy, the petitioner had applied for exemption of electricity duty to the respondent on 25th February, 2002. The Local Authority of Umbergaon had given a certificate giving details of the type of the electric connection given to the petitioner, the date of connection and the electricity duty charged from the company. While examining the exemption application, the Local Authority has also given the certificate to the effect that till February, 2000, there is no due from the petitioner for electricity supply, as the petitioner has paid the full amount. The petitioner was, accordingly, given the electricity supply by treating the petitioner - Resort as Industry and accordingly Energy Bill of LT-3 (Industrial Unit) was given and the supply of electricity energy was assessed. The petitioner had, initially, applied 74 HP load as industrial connection and the same was released on 22nd August, 1991 under LTP-1 Tariff. The petitioner had, thereafter, applied for additional load of 40 HP in the month of October, 1996 and it was sanctioned in 1996 and in 2001, the tariff conversion from LTP-1 to LT-3 for 55 KW was considered and granted with effect from 20th October, 2001. 7. Despite the above facts, all of a sudden in July, 2004, a supplementary bill for differential amount of Rs. 4,37,016.56 for the period from January, 1997 to May, 2004 was served to the petitioner and later on a supplementary bill from February, 1991 to December, 1996 was also served. 7. Despite the above facts, all of a sudden in July, 2004, a supplementary bill for differential amount of Rs. 4,37,016.56 for the period from January, 1997 to May, 2004 was served to the petitioner and later on a supplementary bill from February, 1991 to December, 1996 was also served. Being aggrieved by the said supplementary bills, the petitioner filed a petition before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, Ahmedabad claiming waiver of difference of charges sought to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner deposited 1/3rd amount of the disputed bill with the authority on 30th December, 2004. The respondent - Board filed its reply on 9th August, 2005 to the petition of the petitioner filed before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission. The Commission, after going through the petition and the reply of the parties, without assigning any reason, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is using the electricity power supply for the purpose other than intended and dismissed the said petition vide its order dated 8th September, 2006. 8. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition. 9. Mr. H.J. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Commission has dismissed the petition on the ground of want of jurisdiction by holding that the Commission has no jurisdiction to interpret the contractual obligation. This finding arrived at by the Commission is contrary to the record before the Commission inasmuch as on the one hand the Commission has come to the conclusion that neither party had produced a copy of the contract and on the other hand, it had come to the conclusion that it is a dispute relating to the contractual obligation. This finding of the Commission is self-contradictory in terms because in absence of any document i.e. the document of a contractual relationship between the parties, how an authority had come to the conclusion that the dispute comes within the purview of contractual relation. Mr.Nanavati has further submitted that there is no question of contractual obligation in view of the fact that unilateral decision is taken by the respondent - authority vide letter dated 3rd September, 2004 stating that the electricity is not being utilized for the purpose for which it was granted. Mr.Nanavati has further submitted that there is no question of contractual obligation in view of the fact that unilateral decision is taken by the respondent - authority vide letter dated 3rd September, 2004 stating that the electricity is not being utilized for the purpose for which it was granted. He has further submitted that the respondent No.2 has treated the Club and Resort as Commercial and not as Industrial Unit despite the fact that the State Government in its policy has termed the tourism as an industry and in this connection, the electricity is being given as per the policy of the State Government. He has further submitted that there was total non-application mind on the part of the authority concerned and has issued such letter which is contrary to the certificates issued by the various authorities of the State Government. 10. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate has further submitted that when the State Government in exercise of its executive power framed a policy and on the basis of that policy, the petitioner - Unit comes under tourism industry coupled with the certificate issued by the Commissioner of Industries, Director of Tourism and even at present the sales tax exemption and exemption from the Entertainment Tax is being given to the petitioner Unit, treating as an Unit of Tourism Industry, the respondent - authorities have no power or authority to override the decision of the State Government. Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commission is contrary to the provisions of law and against the settled legal position and hence, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. Ms.Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the petitioner had applied for 60 H.P. Industrial connection which was released as Industrial Connection on 22nd August, 1991 under the LTP-I tariff. Thereafter, the petitioner had demanded additional load of 40 H.P. in August, 1996. The change of tariff and conversion from LTP-I to LTP-III of 55 KW had been considered from 20th October, 2001. In July, 2004, it had come to the knowledge of the respondent that the petitioner is not utilizing the electricity for the purpose declared by it at the time of availing the connection, since the year 1991. Therefore, bill for Rs. In July, 2004, it had come to the knowledge of the respondent that the petitioner is not utilizing the electricity for the purpose declared by it at the time of availing the connection, since the year 1991. Therefore, bill for Rs. 4,37,016.56 paise had been served to the petitioner as per the audit report dated 15th July, 2004 for the period from January, 1997 to May, 2004. The petitioner was also served bill for Rs. 42,299.55 paise for the period from February, 1991 to December, 1996. The petitioner paid 1/3 amount of the bill. 12. Ms.Bhaya has further submitted that Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission determined the tariff applicable to various classes of consumers and passed order on 10th October, 2000 and in the aforesaid tariff order, tariff for supply of electricity at Low Tension i.e. LFD-I, LFD-II, LTP-I and LTP-III which are applicable to various classes of consumers are as under:- LFD-I (For Residential Premises) : This tariff will apply to services for lights, fans and small electrical appliances such as refrigerators, cookers, heaters and small motors having individual capacity not exceeding two BHP attached to domestic appliances in the residential premises. Single - phase supply (aggregate load upto 6 KW) Three - phase supply (aggregate load above 6 KW including small motive power load upto 10 KW). LFD-II (For Commercial Purposes) : This tariff will apply to the services for the purposes specified in the rate LFDI in respect of commercial premises, such as shops, workshops, hotels, restaurants, showrooms, offices, etc. LTP : This tariff shall be applicable for motive power services. LPT-I : This tariff is applicable for aggregate motive power load not exceeding 125 BHP. LTP-III : This tariff shall be applicable to consumers using electricity for motive power services for minimum contract demand of 20 KW and upto 100 KW at low voltage. 13. Ms.Bhaya has further submitted that the petitioner has disclosed the purpose of lodging and boarding i.e. hotel business. As per the tariff which has been decided by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, LTP tariff is applicable for motive power services only whereas LFD-II tariff shall be recoverable from the nonresidential premises such as shop, workshop, hotels, restaurant, offices etc. with the aggregate motive power load not exceeding 3 KW for three phase installation on single metering arrangement. As per the tariff which has been decided by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, LTP tariff is applicable for motive power services only whereas LFD-II tariff shall be recoverable from the nonresidential premises such as shop, workshop, hotels, restaurant, offices etc. with the aggregate motive power load not exceeding 3 KW for three phase installation on single metering arrangement. She has further submitted that if the load requirement of the motive power exceeds 10 KW (other than lights and fans) the consumers should approach the Board for separate connection under LTP-I category. However, the petitioner did not apply for separate lighting connection. She has further submitted that as per the conditions of tariff and Board's "Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges for Supply of electrical Energy", consumer shall utilize the power only for intended purpose, whereas in the instant case the petitioner has been utilizing power supply for purpose other than intended i.e. industrial purpose. She has submitted that the respondent is empowered to recover the differential amount on account of correct application of tariff rate category. The petitioner was required to be billed under LFD-II category and the same was billed under LTP-I and LTP-II categories. Audit Department had proposed to apply the appropriate tariff i.e. LFD-II to the petitioner and recover the differential amount of LFD-II tariff and LTP-I/LTP-III from the date of connection as the petitioner has been utilizing the power for lighting purpose since the date when the connection was released for industrial purposes. She has further submitted that the respondent had to apply commercial tariff for entire load under single metering arrangement from the date of release of the connection and accordingly, bills were issued to the petitioner which are in accordance with law. 14. Ms.Bhaya has submitted that the petitioner had approached the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission for its grievances and having lost there, the petitioner has approached this Court against the judgment and order of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission. She has submitted that the petition under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the judgment and order of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission. The petitioner is required to approach the Appellate Authority constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is required to approach the Appellate Authority constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. She has, therefore, submitted that the present petition is not maintainable. 15. Ms.Bhaya has submitted that Commission has specifically held that the dispute between the parties is regarding the contract entered between the petitioner and respondent and the same is governed under the Contract Act. The Commission has classified consumer tariff according to their utilization, types of loads etc. in the tariff orders dated 10th October, 2000, 25th June, 2004 and 6th May, 2006. The disputes between the parties are regarding contractual conditions and alleged violation thereof by the present petitioner. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent had submitted a copy of the contract on record. The Commission, therefore, came to the conclusion that it was not possible to comment on the same. The Commission has how resolved the dispute between the parties by observing that Commission has no jurisdiction on interpretation of contractual obligations. The Commission has also classified the categories of consumers and applicable tariff. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed. 16. Having heard learned advocates for both the parties and having considered the rival submissions in light of the statutory provisions and having considered the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, the Court is of the view that the main ground of challenge of the petitioner against the supplementary bill raised by the respondent - Board is that under the provisions of Incentive Scheme, 1991, the petitioner is considered to be an Industry and the petitioner was granted electricity connection for industrial purpose and hence there is no justification on the part of the respondent - Board to issue the supplementary bill in 2004 treating the petitioner - Unit as a commercial unit. It is true that the hotels etc. are considered to be industry in the Gujarat Tourism Intensive Scheme, 1991 and the eligibility certificate for tax incentive was issued in favour of the petitioner on 19th October, 2000 holding the petitioner - Unit eligible for an accrued upper limit of Rs. 30.05 Lakhs tax benefits. From 1st October, 1991 to 30th September, 2005 which interalia includes electricity duty of Rs. 12.02 Lakhs. 30.05 Lakhs tax benefits. From 1st October, 1991 to 30th September, 2005 which interalia includes electricity duty of Rs. 12.02 Lakhs. However, this scheme nowhere states that the petitioner is also eligible to be considered as an industry even for the purpose of applicability of tariff rate which is applied to an industry. The electricity charge and electricity duty both are two different things. The State Government has granted the benefits of Rs. 12.02 Lakhs on account of electricity duty, but this does not mean that the petitioner is also entitled to be charged for its electricity consumption on the tariff rates applicable to the industry. For applying rates to the consumers, the electricity company is governed by the tariff or supply code of electricity. Simply because the petitioner has applied for electricity connection for industrial purpose and the same was granted by the respondent as such, without making any inquiry in the matter, but when it was found by the electricity company that the electricity is being used by the petitioner for commercial consumption, it is always open for the electricity company to take remedial measures either by issuing the bill for differential amount or even by disconnecting the electricity supply. The Court is not going into the aspect as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits on account of electricity duty as separate petition filed by the petitioner is pending before this Court. But neither the incentive scheme of 1991 nor any scheme framed thereafter, would render any assistance to the petitioner to claim the benefits of applicability of tariff rate as applicable to the industry. The respondent - electricity company is, therefore, justified in applying the rates of electricity as they are applicable to hotels and restaurants and on that count, the recovery of differential amount between the industrial tariff rate and commercial tariff rate is quite justified. 17. So far as the order of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission is concerned, the Commission has rightly taken the decision that they have no jurisdiction to entertain the contractual matters. Tariff rates are already prescribed and the consumers are bound to pay the electricity bills prepared as per the tariff rates. The dispute about the tariff rates based on contractual relations cannot be entertained by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission. Tariff rates are already prescribed and the consumers are bound to pay the electricity bills prepared as per the tariff rates. The dispute about the tariff rates based on contractual relations cannot be entertained by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission. Even otherwise, there is no valid ground for the petitioner to challenge such decision before this Court as an alternative remedy is provided under the Act to challenge such decision before the Appellate Authority. 18. Be that as it may, since this Court is taking the view that the respondent - electricity company has rightly applied the tariff rates as they are applicable to the hotels and restaurants and sought recovery of the differential amount, there is no justification to challenge such decision before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission. The Court is also not finding any infirmity in the order passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission which requires any interference by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.