JUDGMENT By the Court.—Both these matters involve common question of law and fact and therefore, have been taken together. 2. Grievance of petitioners is that though the kind of industry they are i.e. Cold Storages, continuous process industry, they are not being supplied electricity regularly despite Government policy and exemption of power cut to the petitioners’ kind of industry, vide Government Order dated 21.9.2012 hence they are being discriminated. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents on the contrary is that electricity is in great scarcity. The demand exceed the availability. The generation is limited while requirement in the State is much more than that. Besides, there are priorities, which have to be looked into by respondents while supplying electricity to the various categories of consumers. The State has a constitutional and otherwise obligation not only to distribute its material resources equitably but also looking to peculiar features of certain classes, policies of Government, like industrial development, protection of crops, welfare of patients in a hospital and other medical establishments, students’ welfare, preventing obstruction in functioning of judicial establishments etc. and in that view of the matter, for certain categories of consumers, period of supply of electricity is different and this classification based on rationality and intelligible differentia, action of the respondents cannot be said to be bad or violative of any provision of law as well as Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while accepting the authority and privilege of respondents in providing electricity for different period to different categories of consumers founded on an intelligible differentia, based on rational and logical grounds, submitted that electricity to the petitioner’s industry does not conform to such rational classification. Amongst the same category of consumers, the petitioners are being discriminated. It is also pointed out that Cold Storages situated in certain districts have privilege for unknown reasons of getting supply for 24 hours but the same treatment is being denied to petitioners though petitioners also belong to the same category of consumers namely ‘industrial’ having same kind of process, i.e. Cold Storage. It is also pointed out that Cold Storages situated in certain districts have privilege for unknown reasons of getting supply for 24 hours but the same treatment is being denied to petitioners though petitioners also belong to the same category of consumers namely ‘industrial’ having same kind of process, i.e. Cold Storage. He also drew our attention to an order passed by this Court earlier, inasmuch as, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble L.K.Mohapatra, J. and Hon’ble Rakesh Srivastava, J. passed order dated 26.4.2013 in Writ Petition No. 21858 of 2013 and directions contained therein read as under: (1) The petitioner be supplied electricity for at least 16 to 18 hours a day, as was being done earlier, forthwith from the independent feeder, constructed at their cost. (2) If the petitioners insist upon supply of 24 hours electricity supply a day, as prayed in the writ application, appropriate steps be taken immediately for converting the independent feeder into industrial feeder, and the petitioners be supplied 24 hours electricity supply without interruption. (3) This exercise be completed within fifteen days from the date of communication of the order. 5. Shri Yashwant Verma, Advocate, in order to elaborate the kind of consumers which have been distinguished for the purposes of supply of electricity for different periods, placed an extract from tariff proposal submitted before U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “UPERC”) for the period 2013-14, before this Court, which shows that difference in the period of supply is basically dependent on category to which the consumers belong namely agricultural, commercial, industrial and amongst the industrial also, the large and heavy consumers etc. However, while going through the aforesaid chart, we noticed that there is a mention of certain cities for which continuous supply of electricity for 24 hours is there. 6. When enquired, Sri Yashwant Verma and Nripendra Mishra appearing for the respondents admitted that not only cities mentioned in the aforesaid chart but there are some other cities also where supply of electricity is uninterrupted i.e. for 24 hours. In other words, we find that in regard to supply of electricity to the consumers in the entire State, respondents-Electricity Companies are making distinction not only among various categories of consumers, but on the basis of mere residence of consumers. In other words, we find that in regard to supply of electricity to the consumers in the entire State, respondents-Electricity Companies are making distinction not only among various categories of consumers, but on the basis of mere residence of consumers. Certain cities have been selected such different period of supply of electricity and consumers residing in those cities are being supplied electricity uninterruptedly, for 24 hours, while it is so denied to similar consumers residing in other cities. 7. The above action of the respondents has given rise to a fundamental question, whether, in the matter of supply of electricity, if there is scarcity, proportionate equitable distribution of available energy should be made to all the consumers, irrespective of place of their residence but if there is such a discrimination founded on the basis of residence only, whether respondents are empowered and entitled to do so. 8. Sri B.C.Rai however contended that he is interested in continuous supply to the petitioners only and has no concern about other discrimination in regard to period of supply to others. We find it extremely unfair. This Court cannot shut its eyes to perpetuate a discrimination to public at large and confine its judicial approach to wealthy industrial people. The large number of helpless residents of this State cannot be left in lurch and to stay at the whimsical arbitrary mercy of State and its instrumentality. Since the question posed above involves interest of general public, we treat and convert these writ petitions as Public Interest Litigation and proceed accordingly. 9. After hearing counsel for the parties on 19th June, 2013, we required respondents 2, 3 and 4 to explain and also demonstrate from relevant record as to why electricity is being supplied for 24 hours in some places while denying the same to consumers in other places and provisions under which such discriminatory arrangement is justified. 10. Pursuant to our order dated 19th June, 2013, Sri Kamran Rizvi, Chairman-cum Managing Director, U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Sri Alok Kumar, Managing Director, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Varanasi and Sri Shyam Narain Maura, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Ghazipur, are present. 11. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed their affidavits and respondent 4 has filed a detailed counter-affidavit. 11. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed their affidavits and respondent 4 has filed a detailed counter-affidavit. Sri Yashwant Verma, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Nripendra Mishra, Advocate have appeared, placed relevant documents before us and advanced submissions on behalf of respondents. None requested for further time to file any affidavit. 12. With the consent of the parties we had proceeded to decide this matter finally at this stage under the rules of the Court. 13. Sri Verma stated that there is another Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 7474 of 2012 pending at Lucknow Bench in which question of discriminatory period of supply in various cities of State was raised and therein stand taken by U.P.Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “UPPCL”) is as under: “This is to state that 24:00 hour supply to Etawah, Mainpuri & Kannouj alongwith Rampur, Sambhal, Raibarelly and Amethi have been allowed keeping in view the importance of the areas and the requirement of those places such as protocol and security of VVIP’s during their declared or undeclared visits.” (emphasis added) 14. He placed before this Court a letter dated 3rd April, 2013 of Secretary, U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “UPERC”) addressed to Shri Mohd. Ghufran, Chief Engineer (RAU), Regulatory Affairs Unit, stating that besides the above stand, Tariff Proposal was submitted to the Commission by UPPCL on 4th March, 2013 alongwith affidavit, proposing revision of tariff with mention of 24 Hour supply only in 3 cities namely Lucknow, Noida and Ghaziabad though, as a matter of fact, Commission has been apprised that number of such cities is much larger. The UPERC thus sought an explanation from UPPCL. 15. This was replied vide letter dated 20th April, 2013, by Sri Mohd. Ghufran, Chief Engineer (RAU). A copy of the aforesaid reply has also been placed before this Court for our perusal stating that 24 hours supply schedule is permanent for three cities, Lucknow, Noida and Ghaziabad but is temporary in other cities i.e. Etawah, Mainpuri, Kannauj, Rampur, Sambhal, Raibarelly and Amethi and for such temporary schedule, no difference in tariff would be justified. These two letters we are keeping on record and they shall form part of record of this writ petition. 16. These two letters we are keeping on record and they shall form part of record of this writ petition. 16. Sri Verma also informed us that besides the cities mentioned in tariff revision proposal submitted before UPERC in 2013, there are some cities/districts like Agra, Firozabad, Mathura, Hathras and some part of Etah, which comes in the category of “Taj Trapezium Zone” and there also 24 hours supply is being given. It is pursuant to order of Apex Court for protection of monument ‘Taj’. 17. Respondent 3 in his affidavit, however, has not stated anything as to why and under which provision such a distinction in supply of electricity is being maintained on the basis of place. Similarly, affidavit filed by respondent 2 is also silent on this aspect though they were specifically required to explain, how electricity is being supplied 24 hours in some places and under which provision, such arrangement has been made. 18. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent 4. It is said that according to supply chart, UPPCL maintained at 33/11 KV Sub Station Mohammdabad, average hours of supply to the cold storages in question is 12-13 hours. The supply was obstructed sometimes due to heavy load and demand. 19. With respect to petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 states that they do not object if this Court passes similar directions as already passed in Writ Petition No. 21858 of 2013 vide order dated 26.4.2013. 20. In respect of other part of the matter, regarding distinction and difference in hours of supply in some of the districts, both the learned counsels appearing on behalf of respondents fairly stated that whatever stand they have already taken earlier that this difference hours of supply is on account of importance of the city and frequent visits of VVIPs or protocols, nothing more can be said and the Court may decide correctness of action of the respondents in the light of aforesaid stand. 21. Electricity is no more luxury. In Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam and others, (1989) 3 SCC 709 , Constitution Bench held that electricity generated and distributed constitute “material resources of the community” for the purpose and within the meaning of Article 39(b) of the Constitution. 21. Electricity is no more luxury. In Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam and others, (1989) 3 SCC 709 , Constitution Bench held that electricity generated and distributed constitute “material resources of the community” for the purpose and within the meaning of Article 39(b) of the Constitution. In Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., AIR 1983 SC 239 , expression “material resources of the community” was explained that it means, all things which are capable of producing wealth for the community. Not only the ownership and control of material resources of community are to be so distributed as best to subserve the common good but the ultimate distribution should also be in such a manner so that every one has equal right of utilization, user of such material resources for earning his livelihood adequately, equally and without any discrimination at all. It cannot be doubted that electricity has its role in every walk of life, whether in running industries, for working of offices, during leisure time in home, for medical treatments, education, etc., to make distribution of electricity differently, founded on a place or residence, would be ex facie arbitrary unless a rational, just and valid reason comes forth on the part of State. Article 14 of Constitution prohibits a class legislation and guarantees every person equality before law. In order to supply continuous electricity to the residents of a particular place while denying to others, without anything more, would be palpably infringing Article 14 of the Constitution. 22. To meet out this challenge, the only explanation which has come forward is that the places selected for regular supply of electricity for 24 hours is founded on the ground that those places are of importance, and visited frequently by VVIPs or the protocol for their safety, so required. 23. The stand taken by respondents is not only shocking and surprising but we also could not find any basis, legal or otherwise thereof. What kind of importance is attached with these cities (other than TTZ) and what is the criteria, guideline or relevant factors to identify such cities, despite repeated query, could not be replied by the learned counsels appearing for respondents. Even the senior officers present in Court could utter even a single word on this aspect and simply kept mum. 24. What kind of importance is attached with these cities (other than TTZ) and what is the criteria, guideline or relevant factors to identify such cities, despite repeated query, could not be replied by the learned counsels appearing for respondents. Even the senior officers present in Court could utter even a single word on this aspect and simply kept mum. 24. Moreover, we repeatedly enquired as to what respondents mean by the term “VVIP and protocal”. Who are those so called ‘VVIPs’ and what is their protocol, which require and compel respondents to maintain continuous 24 hours supply in certain and particular places and deprive of such benefit to remaining part of the State and, that too, the bona fide similarly placed consumers. Unfortunately, both learned counsels for respondents could not or did not answer these queries at all. We also enquired whether there is no other city or district in the State of U.P. where the so called ‘VVIPs’ or ‘protocol’ or equivalent thereto visit or stay or reside so as to justify similar treatment. On this aspect also, both kept silence. Their predicament is quite apparent and understandable. Silence speaks a volume. 25. We may put on record just for reiteration that so called protocol, which may require continuous supply of electricity applicable to these places only, where respondents in their wisdom have decided to supply electricity regularly, has also not been shown to us. We also failed to understand the meaning of term “VVIP”. Despite repeated request, learned counsel for the respondents failed to show us genesis of this term. In English dictionary only the term ‘VIP’ has been defined and not VVIP. In Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, 7th Edition published by Oxford University Press, at page 1704, the term ‘VIP’ has been defined as Under: “VIP = a famous or important person who is treated in a special way.” 26. Its synonyms have been given as a ‘celebrity’ and ‘dignitary’. What we understand from the term “VVIP” is that even amongst the celebrity or dignitary or very important persons, by adding the word “very” i.e. using it twice, we create a class among VIPs also but to whom this class will apply, respondents could not throw any light. Its synonyms have been given as a ‘celebrity’ and ‘dignitary’. What we understand from the term “VVIP” is that even amongst the celebrity or dignitary or very important persons, by adding the word “very” i.e. using it twice, we create a class among VIPs also but to whom this class will apply, respondents could not throw any light. In common paralence, we have constitutional functionaries, statutory bodies and authorities and then the person having high religious or social status, besides foreign dignitaries like President, Prime Minister or Ambassador of other countries. Constitutional functionaries which are sometime called high constitutional functionaries, as commonly known, are the offices of President of India, Prime Minister of India, Speakers of Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha, Chief Justice of India and Chief Justices of High Courts, Governors and Chief Minister of the States, Speakers of State Assemblies, State Legislative Bodies etc.. However, we are not confronted with any provision which require that entire city, where they visit frequently, must be supplied electricity regularly i.e. for 24 hours. Moreover, nothing has been shown to us as to how respondents could determine these places where they should supply electricity regularly and for 24 hours, are such where there is a frequent visit of alleged VVIPs etc. The defence taken by respondents appears to be mere eye wash. In respect of most of the selected cities above, nothing placed to justify even this aspect. 27. However, learned counsel for respondents stated that since petitioners have not said anything in the affidavit on this aspect, they have also not stated anything in the counter-affidavit but the fact remains that 24 hours supply of electricity to certain districts is undisputed. Sri Rai however stated at the Bar that this is in consideration of pure and simple political reasons, inasmuch as, election constituencies of certain political high ups is the only reason for this distinction and discrimination. 28. Sri Verma, however, further insisted that distinction in the matter of period of supply on the basis of category of consumers may be justified. We have no dispute on it. Category of consumers cannot be identified with the place/residence of the consumer. The policy laid down by State Government to maintain continuous supply for industries which is for general and common benefit of entire State, and people at large, deserve to be followed. We have no dispute on it. Category of consumers cannot be identified with the place/residence of the consumer. The policy laid down by State Government to maintain continuous supply for industries which is for general and common benefit of entire State, and people at large, deserve to be followed. But in order to maintain smooth supply of electricity for 24 hours in certain cities/districts, in the name of unknown/undisclosed VVIPs and thereby causing much lessor supply of electricity to other places, as also to the industry like petitioners, is patently arbitrary. 29. Sri Rai, counsel for petitioner drew our attention to Industrial Policy, 2012, para 2.6.4, wherein State Government has decided that such feeder emanating from 33/11 sub-station and had industrial load of 75% and more shall be treated to be an “industrial feeder” and would be exempted from power cuts. It is also stated therein that dedicated feeders constructed by industries at their own cost shall not be utilized for any other use by tapping. The above decision was also communicated to UPPCL by Principal Secretary, Energy vide Government Order dated 21st September, 2012 with the further direction to comply with Industrial Policy 2012 in letters and words yet the respondents have failed to implement the same and are acting illegally. 30. We do not find it necessary for ourselves to delve into the factum of political patronage etc. but the kind of stand taken by respondents clearly leaves no doubt for us to hold that supply of electricity to certain selected cities without any rational and logic or for patently flimsy, artificial and irrational reasons is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory. It results in compelling the consumers to pay electricity at different rates though tariff determined by UPERC is common to both. This, we can demonstrate by taking an illustration. 31. A consumer receiving electricity for 24 hours in a city belonging to domestic category will have to pay electricity charges at a lessor rates than his counter part residing in a place where supply of electricity is for much shorter period. This can be demonstrated as under: (a) If we take up a case of a consumer at both the places with an electrical load of 5 KW. Such consumer, if is residing at Lucknow or Rampur or Kanpur or Etawah etc. This can be demonstrated as under: (a) If we take up a case of a consumer at both the places with an electrical load of 5 KW. Such consumer, if is residing at Lucknow or Rampur or Kanpur or Etawah etc. will have to pay electricity charges as follows: (b) A consumer residing in another city getting electricity supply, suppose for 12 hours, his charges would be : 32. This calculation is only illustrative. Whatever may be the rate of electricity, but through rate, per unit, would come lessor where consumer gets supply for larger period, and, higher where consumer gets supply for lessor period. This is per se arbitrary, discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 33. We further enquired from learned counsel for the respondents as to under which provision respondents are entitled to make discrimination in the matter of supply of electricity on their own and wherefrom they could derive such power, particularly when the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2003”) does contemplate equitable uniform supply of electricity to all the consumers, similarly placed. Any discrimination made on the basis of residence is also violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. No such provision could be placed before us which may authorise respondents on their own in such discriminatory supply to the consumers of same category and that too merely on the basis of place of residence. The mere fact that a city has patronage of an unknown alleged VVIP, or a high placed and mighty person, would not justify 24 hours supply to the consumers in his constituency area, depriving other consumers, a similar treatment. This is wholly irrational, illogical and patently arbitrary. Moreover, the alleged pretext of protocol and VVIP is a sheer eye-wash and in any case impermissible in law. The right of life and liberty to every individual is to be seen equally as everybody enjoy a similar fundamental right by virtue of Article 21 of Constitution. We do not find any import or relevance of term “VVIP and Protocol” for the purpose of supply of electricity to the residents of a particular area, differently than the residents of other areas. We also tried to find out whether any other constitutional functionary’s residence, stay or visit would not justify a similar treatment to the residents of other cities, to which no reply was forthcoming. 34. We also tried to find out whether any other constitutional functionary’s residence, stay or visit would not justify a similar treatment to the residents of other cities, to which no reply was forthcoming. 34. We, thus, have no hesitation in holding that manner in which distinction has been made in the period of supply of electricity to the same category of consumers, merely for the reason of their place of residence is patently arbitrary, illegal and illogical. The “State” under Article 12, is under statutory obligation to equitably distribute material resources available to it. If there is a rational classification, the distinction may be made, but the reason assigned herein cannot be termed as rational or logical constituting a valid classification. We strongly disapprove, discard and condemn this kind of approach on the part of respondents. It cannot have sanction of law. 35. In view thereof both the writ petitions are allowed with the following directions : (i) In the matter of supply of electricity, petitioners shall be extended directions contained in judgment dated 26.4.2013 in Writ Petition No. 21858 of 2013 which have already been reproduced in para 4 above and the petitioners shall also be given similar treatment. (ii) Continuous supply of 24 hours to certain places and cities like Etawah, Mainpuri, Kannauj, Rampur Sambhal, Raibarelly and Amethi is arbitrary, illegal. The respondents are directed to supply electricity to all the consumers irrespective of place of residence (except the area covered by Taj Trapezium Zone in view of directions of Apex Court) equitably forthwith. (iii) This direction would not cover distinction in period of supply with reference to the category of consumers like domestic, agricultural, commercial industrial etc. ——————