ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose writ petition being W.P(C) No.6729 of 2016 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 17.07.2018, whereby the prayer of this appellant (original petitioner) seeking migration from “Demand Based Tariff” to “Installation Based Tariff”, was not accepted by the learned Single Judge, and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is having Low Tension Industrial & Medium Power Service Connection of electricity from the respondents which is known as “L.T.I.S Connection”. This L.T.I.S connection was given to this appellant on 25.05.2009 for 65 H.P. 3. It further appears from the facts of the case that this appellant was given the aforesaid L.T.I.S connection on “Installation Based Tariff”. 4. On 07.01.2011, upon the application preferred by this appellant (original petitioner) from 65 H.P. Load it was enhanced to 79 H.P. 5. Detail explanations have been given by the counsels for both the sides, regarding merits and demerits of :- (a) Installation Based Tariff, and (b) Demand Based Tariff. For any reasons whatsoever this appellant preferred an application on 10.02.2016 for change of tariff from Installation Based Tariff to Demand Based Tariff and on the basis of this application preferred by this appellant, the change was made effective from 17.06.2016. 6. Thus, from Installation Based Tariff, at the desire of this appellant, his L.T.I.S connection was maintained as it is, but, the tariff has been changed now to Demand Based Tariff. 7. For the ready reference, Supply Tariff Order for the year 2015-16 is produced before this Court, which is enacted under Section 61 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the relevant part of the said tariff for the Low Tension Industrial and Medium Power Service (L.T.I.S) of the consumer category reads as under :- “Low Tension Industrial & Medium Power Service (LTIS) Applicability: This schedule shall apply to all industrial units applying for a load of less than or equal to 100 kVA (or equivalent in terms of HP of kW). The equivalent HP for 100 kVA shall be 114 HP and the equivalent kW for 100 kVA shall be 85.044 kW. The equivalent HP for 100 kVA shall be 114 HP and the equivalent kW for 100 kVA shall be 85.044 kW. Service Character : AC, 50 Cycles, Single Phase supply at 230 Volts or 3 Phase Supply at 400 volts. Demand Based tariff/ Installation based tariff for sanctioned load upto 85.044kW. Tariff : Installation Based Tariff : All consumers under this category and opting for Installation based tariff shall be required to pay fixed charges per HP as per the applicable tariff rates for this category. If the inspecting officer during the inspection of a premises finds excess load (more than 114 HP) then the inspecting officer has to serve one month notice to the consumer for regularisation of excess load (above 114 HP). After the expiry of the said one month, the inspecting officer will inspect the premises again and if he still finds un-regularized load in the premises, action may be taken as per law. Table 99 : Approved Installation Based Tariff for LTIS for FY 2015-16 Consumer Category Fixed Charges Energy Charges LTIS Unit Rate Rate (Rs./kWh) LTIS Installation Based Tariff All Units Rs/HP/Month 140.oo 5.3o Demand Based Tariff : All consumers under this category and opting for Demand Based tariff shall be required to pay Demand charges per kVA at the rate applicable to HT consumers drawing power at 11 kV. The restriction of connected load will not apply to consumers opting for Demand based Tariff. Table 100 : Approved Demand Based Tariff for LTIS for FY 2015-16 Consumer Category Fixed Charges Energy Charges LTIS Unit Rate Rate (Rs./kWh) LTIS Installation Based Tariff All Units Rs/HP/Month 255.oo 5.3o Note : The billing demand shall be the maximum demand recorded during the month or 50% of contract demand whichever is higher. In case actual demand is recorded at more than 100 kVA in any month, the same shall be treated as the new contract demand for the purpose of billing of future months and the consumer will have to get into a new Agreement under the HTS category for the revised contracted demand with the Petitioner as per the terms and conditions of HT supply.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. In view of the aforesaid provisions of the tariff order which is enacted under Section 61 of the Electricity Act, 2003, this appellant applied for the change of tariff from Installation Based Tariff to Demand Based Tariff on 10.02.2016 and effect was given from 10.02.2016. 9. Now, the wavering minded appellant (original petitioner) thought it fit again, to go back to Installation Based Tariff from Demand Based Tariff, and therefore, this appellant again preferred the application on 17.06.2016 (Annexure – 6 to be read with Annexure – 7). 10. Looking to the short span of approximately four months from the earlier change of tariff from Installation Based Tariff to Demand Based Tariff, the second request of this appellant from change of Demand Based Tariff to Installation Based Tariff was rejected by order dated 22.10.2016 (Annexure – 15). 11. The aforesaid order was passed by the General Manger of the respondents electricity company, dated 22.10.2016, was under challenge in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6729 of 2016 and the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 17.07.2018, and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 12. The major contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that change of tariff demanded by this appellant from Demand Based Tariff to Installation Based Tariff, is always permissible even within the period of four months or five months from 10.02.2016. There is no restriction under the law for such type of change of tariff. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the reasons given by the respondents in the impugned order dated 22.10.2016 (Annexure – 15) that locking period of two years is illegal reasons. In fact, there is no law which prohibits such type of change of tariff. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision rendered in W.P.(C) No.5389 of 2005, judgment dated 20.07.2015. 13. We are not in agreement with this contention raised by the appellant mainly for the reasons that : (a) This appellant is a L.T.I.S. Consumer. Initially, he was in the Installation Based Tariff up to 10.02.2016. Thereafter, upon his application, it was changed to Demand Based Tariff w.e.f. 10.02.2016. (b) Again, on 17.06.2016 application was preferred for change of tariff from “Demand Based Tariff” to “Installation Based Tariff”. Initially, he was in the Installation Based Tariff up to 10.02.2016. Thereafter, upon his application, it was changed to Demand Based Tariff w.e.f. 10.02.2016. (b) Again, on 17.06.2016 application was preferred for change of tariff from “Demand Based Tariff” to “Installation Based Tariff”. Within four or five months this type of application for change of tariff has been preferred. It ought to be kept in mind that change in a tariff is permissible from the Installation Based Tariff to Demand Based Tariff, but, too frequent applications for change of tariff is not permissible. There is bound to be some locking period within which the tariff cannot be altered at the whims and caprice of the consumer. (c) Even if, there is no locking period after one change in a tariff, but, an administrative direction can always be given by the respondents for imposing a locking period. If the law is silent, for locking period, by administrative orders such locking period, can always, be imposed, because once the tariff is changed there are several type of changes are to be made by the respondents for calculation of the amount payable by the consumer. (d) If the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is accepted then it will lead to a situation that every year the tariff can be changed or every month tariff can be changed then why not every week or every day. Thus, too frequent change in tariff is not permissible. Always an administrative direction can be given by the respondents for the consumer that there shall be particular locking period. Once the tariff is changed, it cannot be altered prior to such locking period. (e) Respondents have all powers, jurisdiction and authority to impose such a locking period especially, when the law or agreement is silent. (f) Respondents are not bound to follow the whimsical mind of the applicant for too much frequent change in the tariff. 14. Much has been argued out by the counsel for the appellant that under Clauses 7.15.3 and 7.15.4 of the Supply Code for change in the consumer category or change in service category. We are not concerned with these clauses at all of the Supply Code. 14. Much has been argued out by the counsel for the appellant that under Clauses 7.15.3 and 7.15.4 of the Supply Code for change in the consumer category or change in service category. We are not concerned with these clauses at all of the Supply Code. As stated herein above, from the supply order for the year 2015-16 enacted under Section 61 of the Electricity Act, 2003 there is no change in the consumer category of this appellant, despite change from “Installation Based Tariff” to “Demand Based Tariff”, and hence the judgment upon which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, which is reported in 2008(4) JLJR 233 , is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because the said reported decision was for reduction in a supply of quantity of electricity, as stated in paragraph 15 of the aforesaid decision whereas in the facts of the present case we are concerned with too frequent change of tariff from “Installation Based Tariff” to “Demand Based Tariff” and vice versa. 15. Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in W.P(C) No.581 of 2001, judgment dated 08.08.2001, which was confirmed in L.P.A. No.745 of 2001, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. The fact of that case, is entirely different from the facts of the present case. In the writ petition being W.P(C) No.581 of 2001, the question involved was about the termination of the agreement whereas in the facts of the present case, there is too much frequent shifting from the Installation Based Tariff to Demand Based Tariff and vice versa. None of the aforesaid decisions is helpful to the appellant looking to the peculiar facts of the present case that : (a) There is no change in the consumer category of this appellant despite the change from the Installation Based Tariff to Demand Based Tariff. (b) From the very inception, i.e., 25.05.2009, this appellant (original petitioner) was given Installation Based Tariff as L.T.I.S Consumer. On 10.02.2016 upon his application, it was changed to Demand Based Tariff. (c) Again on 17.06.2016, application was preferred for change of tariff from Demand Based Tariff to Installation Based Tariff which is within the period of four months and seven days. On 10.02.2016 upon his application, it was changed to Demand Based Tariff. (c) Again on 17.06.2016, application was preferred for change of tariff from Demand Based Tariff to Installation Based Tariff which is within the period of four months and seven days. (d) This application cannot be allowed because of the locking period of two years from 10.02.2016, i.e., from the date of earlier change. (e) Such type of locking period can always be applicable on the basis of the administrative order otherwise, wavering minded consumer will come frequently to change of tariff from 'A' to 'B' and again 'B' to 'A' etc. Several types of changes are to be made by the appellant once the tariff is altered too much frequently, (f) Even otherwise, also as submitted by the counsel for the appellant that w.e.f. 30.04.2018 now there is only one type of tariff which is Demand Based Tariff. (g) Thus, very concept of installation based tariff is abolished w.e.f. 30.04.2018. The question of change of tariff involving the period running from February, 2016 to 30.04.2018. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the highest there will be difference of Rs.10,000/- per month, and so the whole amount involved is approximately Rs.3,00,000/- 16. Thus, the aforesaid facts, make the present case different from the facts of the decision upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, and hence, these judgments are not helpful to this appellant. 17. The aforesaid aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6729 of 2016, judgment dated 17.07.2018. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. 18. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is therefore dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be deposited by this appellant before the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Nyaya Sadan Doranda, Ranchi, within a period of six weeks from today. 19. This amount shall be utilized towards the programme 'Access to Justice'. 20. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with cost. 21. In view of the final order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal, I.A. No.6980 of 2018 is, hereby, dismissed. 22. 19. This amount shall be utilized towards the programme 'Access to Justice'. 20. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with cost. 21. In view of the final order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal, I.A. No.6980 of 2018 is, hereby, dismissed. 22. Copy of this order will be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Nyaya Sadan, Doranda, Ranchi.