Electricity supply security deposits upheld as valid terms; no statutory or equitable right to interest was recognised.

Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 was treated as valid because it authorises a Board to fix terms and tariffs, including security deposit conditions, subject to the Act and regulations. A consumption security deposit was characterised as a running advance tied to the billing cycle, not a fixed deposit, so no interest obligation arose under the statute, contract, common law, equity, or the Interest Act, 1978. The no-interest condition and enhancement of additional security deposit were upheld as rational measures linked to prompt payment of electricity dues and protection of the Board's finances, and were not found arbitrary, unconscionable, or violative of Article 14.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 was invalid for want of guidelines and whether the Board could prescribe terms and tariffs including security deposit conditions; (ii) whether the consumption security deposit was in substance an advance payment intended to secure prompt recovery of electricity dues, and whether the Board was legally bound to pay interest on such deposit under the statute, common law, equity, or the Interest Act, 1978; (iii) whether a condition denying interest on the security deposit and requiring enhancement of additional security deposit was arbitrary, unconscionable, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 was invalid for want of guidelines and whether the Board could prescribe terms and tariffs including security deposit conditions.

Analysis: Section 49 operates subject to the Act and the regulations and authorises the Board to supply electricity on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit while fixing uniform tariffs with regard to the statutory factors. The provision is read with Section 59, which permits tariff adjustment for the Board's financial requirements, and with the regulation-making power under Section 79(j). The power is not uncontrolled merely because the section uses the phrase "as the Board thinks fit". The condition of security deposit, when related to the billing and supply structure, falls within the permissible field of regulation and does not suffer from absence of legislative guidance.

Conclusion: Section 49 was held valid and the Board was held competent to prescribe the impugned terms, including security deposit conditions.

Issue (ii): Whether the consumption security deposit was in substance an advance payment intended to secure prompt recovery of electricity dues, and whether the Board was legally bound to pay interest on such deposit under the statute, common law, equity, or the Interest Act, 1978.

Analysis: The deposit was characterised as a running advance linked to the consumption and billing cycle, not as a fixed deposit or money retained in a debtor-creditor relationship. It was meant to secure prompt payment of current electricity charges and could be appropriated towards dues, including amounts arising on default or breach of supply conditions. On that footing, no statutory obligation to pay interest was found in the Electricity Acts or the allied scheme governing licensees. The provisions concerning interest in Schedule VI and the model conditions were treated as applicable to licensees and not as imposing an ment on Electricity Boards. Section 4(2) of the Interest Act, 1978 was held inapplicable where interest is excluded by the contractual or statutory framework. For the same reason, no right to interest arose in equity or common law.

Conclusion: The Board was held to have no liability to pay interest on the security deposit under statute, contract, equity, or common law.

Issue (iii): Whether a condition denying interest on the security deposit and requiring enhancement of additional security deposit was arbitrary, unconscionable, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court treated the condition as part of a standard form supply arrangement entered into against the background of a public utility supplying electricity on credit and bearing heavy financing burdens. The classification of consumers for a uniform security requirement was found to have a rational nexus with the object of ensuring payment discipline and protecting the Board's finances. A condition excluding interest was not found to be so one-sided as to shock the conscience or amount to an unconscionable bargain. Enhancement of additional security deposit was upheld as a matter linked to revision in tariffs and consumption levels, and no separate justification was required each time the deposit was revised.

Conclusion: The no-interest condition and the provision for enhancement of additional security deposit were upheld as neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.

Final Conclusion: The impugned security-deposit framework was sustained as a valid incident of electricity supply, while the consumer claims to compel payment of interest or invalidate the conditions on constitutional grounds were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A State Electricity Board may, under its statutory power to fix terms and conditions of supply, require a refundable consumption security deposit as a condition of supply and need not pay interest on that deposit unless a statute, valid regulation, or enforceable contract so provides; such a condition is not arbitrary if it is rationally connected to securing prompt payment of electricity dues.

---