ORDER : The petitioner-M/s Ganpati Food Product Ltd. is aggrieved of order dated 22.10.2016 by which its application seeking migration from demand-based tariff to installation-based tariff has been declined. 2. Briefly stated, on 25.05.2009 electrical connection (LTIS) for 65 HP was granted to the petitioner, in respect of which an agreement was executed on 25.05.2009. Subsequently, on petitioner's request the load was enhanced from 65 HP to 79 HP on 07.01.2011. All through the consumer had opted for installation-based tariff, however, after the new tariff for 2015-2016 came into force from 01.01.2016, the petitioner opted for demand-based tariff and a new agreement for 69 KVA load was executed on 10.02.2016. It has submitted an application on 17.06.2016 for shifting again to installation-based tariff. When no decision was taken on its application, the petitioner came to this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4369 of 2016 which stood disposed of by an order dated 05.09.2016 with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to take a decision within six weeks. In purported compliance of the Writ Court's order impugned order dated 22.10.2016 has been passed, declining the application seeking migration from demand-based tariff to installation-based tariff on the ground that agreement dated 10.02.2016 executed between the parties is for two years and, therefore, change from demand-based tariff to installation-based tariff is not permissible, midway. 3. Stand taken by the petitioner is that under the new tariff regime which came into force from 01.01.2004 a consumer has an option either to opt for installation-based tariff or demand-based tariff and while so, it is always permissible for the consumer to seek shift from demand-based tariff to installation-based tariff and vice-versa, even during currency of the agreement executed between the parties. To fortify this stand, Mr. M. S. Mittal, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner refers to Regulation 7.15.3 of the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2015 which reads as under : 7.15.3 If a consumer wishes to change his consumer category, he shall submit an application form to the Distribution Licensee in the format given in Annexure 6 to these Regulations. The Distribution Licensee shall process the application form in accordance with clauses 7.6 to 7.11 of these Regulations. The Distribution Licensee shall process the application form in accordance with clauses 7.6 to 7.11 of these Regulations. For site inspection and issuance & payment of demand note for the estimated cost of works, both the Distribution Licensee and application shall follow the procedure and timelines as laid down in clauses 6.6 - 6.17 and 6.19 - 6.25 of these Regulations. The Distribution Licensee shall also note down the meter reading at the time of inspection. 4. The Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2015 contains a separate Chapter A-6 “Procedure for providing fresh electricity connection”. Chapter A-7 provides “Procedure for modification in existing connections”. Under Regulation 7.1 change in the following category of connections is permissible : (a) Change in name of registered consumer due to change in ownership/occupancy - Annexure 4; (b) Transfer of ownership to legal heir - Annexure 5; (c) Conversion of Services/Change of Consumer Category/Shifting of Premises - Annexure 6; (d) Load enhancement/reduction - Annexure 7. 5. How the change shall be effected in the aforesaid cases has been laid down more specifically under Regulation 7.2 to 7.18.3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on the provision under Regulation 7.15.3 to contend that change from demand-based tariff to installation-based tariff is permissible. This regulation is in relation to “Conversion of Services”. Under Chapter A-7 conversion of services, shifting of meter/existing connection, transfer of connection (change in name) and reclassification of consumer category are permissible, but there is no provision under the regulations under which a consumer can migrate from demand-based tariff to installation-based tariff or vice-versa. 6. The learned Advocate-General submits that the petitioner's application is neither for change in consumer category nor for change in service category. 7. The agreement dated 10.02.2016 executed with the respondent-Nigam for contract demand of 79 HP is for LTIS electrical connection and there is no application by the petitioner either for enhancement or reduction of load or for change in consumer category or service category. 7. The agreement dated 10.02.2016 executed with the respondent-Nigam for contract demand of 79 HP is for LTIS electrical connection and there is no application by the petitioner either for enhancement or reduction of load or for change in consumer category or service category. May be by the impugned order dated 22.10.2016 the petitioner's application has been rejected primarily on the ground that the agreement is for two years and during currency of the said agreement change from demand-based tariff to installation-based tariff is not permissible, this order has to be understood in the context of the provisions under the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2015 which do not provide an option for shifting from demand-based tariff to intallation-based tariff during currency of the agreement. 8. In the above facts, finding no provision under the 2015 Regulations offering an option to the consumer to shift midway during currency of the agreement from demand-based tariff to installation-based tariff, the writ petition is dismissed.