APPEALS NOS 1241 1245 1506 1525  1770 177175 Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2681975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos 87475 589475 706874 87675 1661 930 2326 149 338575 689174 825 2247 24093021 693175 6932 7106 717874 123 133 235 2241 717073175 respectively and CIVIL APPEALs NOS  1242 1253 1443 1456 1461 1664 1666 1772 1774 1775 1995 199675  164 16576Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2681975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos  679674 588674 73275 158375 729774 51275 612174 690274 679174 21575 628774 585474 287175
287175 689075 163475 52575 584374 163575 205375 159 311 229875 647874 221875 336075 1509 2040 202 24475 respectively and CIVIL APPEALS NOS 1244 1462 1465 1467 1498 1500 1505 1662 1667 1776 1780 1991 199475  16676 Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2681975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in writ Petitions Nos
589074 510974 685974 18575 55475 1274 1943 2366 2254 1015 1114 764 296 258475 6952 588074 6505 227275 692274 205 114 251 6318 194 2365 1567 6482 897 62075 6520 675374 673 2409 139575 672474 2760 231 160375 608274 2245 75 2975 2975 35675 7042 164975 29 2113 707 1603 1194 1194 335475 683674 267075 588974 respectively and CIVIL APPEALS Nos 1526 1530 1663  1997 OF 1975 Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2681975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos  230 276 354 355 596 230 and 23075 respectively
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1532 OF 1975 Appeal by special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2681975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 432074
CIVIL APPEAL NO
1533 OF 1975 Appeal by special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2681975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 231175
CIVIL APPEAL NOS
1534  1661 OF 1975 Appeals by Spe cial Leave from the Judgment and order dated 2681975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos
692674 and 201975
A K Sen In CA
124575 B Sen In CA 150675 K Srinivasamurthy Naunit Lal and Miss Lalita Kohli for the appellants in Cas
1241 1245 1506 1525 1770 177175
136 MC Bhandare In CA 124275 Eswara Prasad In CA 1443 1446 AL Lakshminarayana In 1243 1447 145175 A Panduranga Rao In CA
1460 1461 1995 199675 D Sudhakar Rao In CA 124275 B Kanta Rao for the Appellants in CAs
1242 1243 1443 1454 1456 1461 1664 1666 1772 1774 1775 1995199675 and 164 16576
B Sen CA 146275 Sachin Chaudhry CA 124475 for the appellants in CA Nos 1244 1462 1465 1467 1498 1500 1505 1662 1667 1776 1780 1991 199475 and 16676
Subodh Markandaya for the appellants in Cas 1526 1530 1663 and 199775
Rangam and Miss A Subhashani for the Appellant in CA 153275
AK Sanghi for the Appellant in CA 153375
A Subba Rao for the Appellants in Cas
Nos 1534 and 166175
Lal Narain Sinha Sol
Gen T Anatha Babu KR Choudhary SL Setia and Mrs Veena Khanna for the Respondents in all the appeals
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY CJ
These appeals are by special leave from the judgment dated 26 August 1975 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
The special leave was granted as follows  During the period in question there was an order of the State Government under section 22 B of the Electricity Act 1910 limiting the supply of electricity to 75 per cent of the previous consump tion
The quotas fixed by the Board are very often below 75 per cent and sometimes as low as 30 per cent
Special leave should be granted limited to the question whether in the facts of the order under section 22 B it is open to reduce the supply to anything less than 75 per cent and charge penalty of extra charges for that quantity
 The State Electricity Board referred to for brevity as the Board supplies electricity of two varieties
One is high tension
The other is low tension
Power is gener ated by hydro electrical method by use of river waters and also by thermal method using coal
The Board fixed quotas for consumption with effect from March 1972 because power generated was not adequate to meet the requirements
For a short period between 7 July 1972 and 16 August 1972 these quotas were lifted
The restrictions were reimposed
An extra charge for consumption of energy beyond the limits of quotas was introduced on 25 February 1973
The charge was double the usual rate
This continued till 1 August 1974
The Board introduced on 29 July 1974 a further cut in quotas and enhanced the extra charges
The extra charges were double the usual rates if the excess consump tion was 20 per cent or below that limit over the newly intro 137 duced quotas
If the total consumption was in excess of 20 per cent the extra charge was four times the total excess consumption
The Board on 20 March 1973 reduced the quotas still further retaining the pattern of extra charges
Weekly quotas instead of monthly ones were introduced
A restriction was imposed to the effect that for every 5 per cent of excess consumption there would be one day s cut
It may be stated here that on 29th April 1971 the usual tariffs both for high tension and low tension energy were enhanced
The Board on 1 June 1974 removed the slab system and a uniform rate of 14 nP per unit was introduced
The appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court for a writ direction or order to collect from the appel lants normal charges for consumption of electricity and not to disconnect their supply and further order declaring the restrictions with regard to imposition of quota and the levy of penalty charges as illegal
The High Court held that the Board has power to fix quotas or otherwise re strict consumption of electrical energy and collect charges at four times the normal rates
The appellants obtained leave limited to the question whether under section 22 B of the Electricity Act 1910 referred to as the 1910 Act it is open to the Board to reduce the supply to anything less than 75 per cent and levy extra charges for excess supply
The State Government on 6 April 1972 made an order under section 22 B of the 1910 Act inter alia as follows  All consumers of electricity both high tension and low tension being billed under high tension categories I both normal and alternative tariffs II and III and low Tension category V shall so regulate their use of electricity as not to exceed in any month the limits of maximum demand and energy specified hereunder The maximum demand limit will be 75 of the average monthly maximum demand over the period from March 1971 to February 1972
The limit for energy consumption will be 75 of the average monthly consumption number of units over the period from March 1971 to February 1972
The supply to consumers who violate the restrictions being im posed hereunder will be liable to be cut off without notice
Without prejudice to the right to disconnect supply the Board will also bill the energy and maximum demand utilised in excess of the limits above prescribed at double the tariff rates
Consumers of High tension electricity being billed under alternative tariff under Category I will further pay for the excess energy consumed energy charges at the rate of 20 paise per unit and MD charges at twice the tariff rate
X X X X 11 1003 SCI76 138 The restrictions shall not apply to i Railways ii Hospitals including nursing homes and Doctors Clinics iii water supply iv for sanitary arrangements for the public v Radio Stations vi Telephone Exchanges and other catego ries totalling 15 in number
x x x x x x In the case of consumers who have not availed supply during the entire period of March 1971 to February 1972 because their loads were seasonal or for some other reason the average monthly limits for maximum demand and energy will be computed with reference to the period between March 1971 and February 1972 during which supply was availed Of
 This order of the State Government in 1972 was occa sioned by three features as recited in the order
First the water position in the Hydroelectric reservoirs in the State became very unsatisfactory because of failure of monsoon
 Second sufficient power was not available to meet the needs of the State
Third it became necessary to conserve the available water with a view to ensuring regular and uniform supply of electrical energy during the coming months
On 8 August 1975 the State Government stated that the Government issued several orders commencing 6 April 1972 and ending 31 July 1975 placing certain restrictions on the consumption of electricity in view of the critical power supply position
 There were several orders on 6 April 1972 3 May 1972 16 May 1972 22 May 1972 29 May 1972 9 June 1972 and 22 September 1972
The Government canceled these orders on 8 August 1975 with effect from 7 July 1972
On 20 March 1975 the Board in its order of that date referred to its previous orders in the years 1973 and 1974 and the order of 2 January 1975 and stated as follows Because of greatly depleted levels in the Hydel Reservoirs on account of the low rainfall in the catchmeat areas the hydel generation in the Andhra Pradesh grid has come down very much
No assistance was forthcoming from the neigh bouring State as from the monsoon of 1974
Two new sets of Kothagudem Thermal Power Station have not stabilised
Besides normal load there has been heavy increase of agri cultural loads during the last month due to the onset of summer
This has resulted in the load going far beyond the system capability
The graded tariff which was introduced expecting it to act as a sufficient deterrant to the consum ers against exceeding the quotas fixed has not given relief to the extent expected
It has become impossible to meet the agricultural demand and save the standing crop at this crucial stage
The Board in this background decided to raise power cuts on demand and energy consumption and or dered that all high tension and low tension consumers should so regulate their use of electricity as not to exceed in any month the limits of maximum demand and energy specified against each category
139 Categories mentioned in the order of the Board dated 20 March 1975 are the Priority Industries Continuous Process Industries Other industries Essential Services Low ten sion Category Domestic Supply Low Tension Category non Domestic Supply and Public Lighting
The industries which had been exempted from power cut before like Fertilizer Industries Oil Refineries Pesticides Manufacturing Indus tries All India Radio were also subjected to 20 per cent cut both on maximum demand and energy consumption
The cement industry which was having 100 percent quota was subjected to
20 per cent cut
The sugar mills and rice and Roller Flour Mills continued to be subjected to 10 per cent cut both on maximum demand and energy consumption For closer control over consumption and for disconnecting those that exceed the quotas the system of weekly quotas was revived and was to be implemented
The proportional quota for the week would be one fourth of the monthly quota already fixed
Besides the penal charges already existing the Board decided that the services of the consumers would be liable to be disconnected if they exceeded the quotas fixed by anything beyond 5 per cent
For every 5 per cent of excess over the quota the disconnection would be for one day
The Board did not subject the low tension domestic supply category to any restriction
In priority industries the existing quota of 70 per cent was reduced to 55 per cent
In food products industries the maximum demand of 50 per cent was not reduced but the energy consumption was reduced from 60 to 50 per cent
In Continuous Process Industries the maximum demand and energy consumption were reduced from 65 per cent to 55 per cent
In other indus tries not covered by those categories the existing cut of 50 per cent was not subjected to further cut
The appellants contend as follows First section 22 B of the 1910 Act gives powers to the State Government to control the distribution and consumption of energy
The State Government exercised its powers under section 22 B of the 1910 Act and reduced the quota to 75 per cent on 6 April 1972
Therefore any further reduction by the Board would be illegal
Second section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act 1948 referred to as the 1948 Act does not confer power on the Board to effect rationing of supply because that would involve excessive delegation of legislative power
Further there is no guidance in section 49 of the 1948 Act to reduce the supply and therefore section 49 is bad
The alternative contention of the appellants is that unless the Board made Regulations under section 79 J of the 1948 Act it could not ration the supply in exercise of powers under section 49 of the Act
The appellants contend that the Board had to lay down the principles in the regu lations which the Board is empowered to make under section 79 J of the 1948 Act and unless the regulations lay down the principles under section 79 J of the 1948 Act the Board cannot exercise power under section 49 of the 1948 Act
The appellants also contend that the State Government notification dated 6 April 1972 regulating and restricting the consumption 140 electricity on the basis of 75 of the average maximum demand of a consumer between the period March 1971 and February 1972 remained in force till 2 August 1975 and therefore the Board could not exercise the power of regu lating and controlling supply and consumption of electrici ty because it was exercised by the State
The relevant provisions of the 1948 Act are as follows Section 18 General duties of the Board Subject to the provisions of this Act the Board shall be charged with generaly duty  and it shall be the duty of the Board  c to supply electricity as soon as practicable to any other licensees or persons requiring such supply and whom the Board may be competent under this Act so to supply
 Section 49 1 Subject to the provisions of this Act and of regulations if any made in this behalf the Board may supply electricity to any person  upon such terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit    4 In fixing the tariff and terms and conditions for the supply of electrici ty the Board shall not show undue preference to any person
 Section 59 The Board shah not as far as practica ble  carry on its operations under this Act at a loss and shall adjust its charges accordingly from time to time
 It is also appropriate at this stage to refer tothe provisions in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Power Tariffs contained in Part F dealing with general terms and conditions of sup ply
The relevant provisions are clauses 67 and 68 of Power Tariffs which are set out hereunder Clause 67 The Board shall have the unilateral right to vary from time to time the terms and conditions of supply by special or general proceed ings
In particular the Board shah have the right to enhance the rates chargeable for supply of electricity according to exigencies
 Clause 68 The Board shall endeavour to afford continuous supply and to restore interrupted supply as early as possible
The Board shah have the right to stagger consumer or consumers according to operational and other exigencies
The Board shall not be responsible for any loss or inconvenience occasioned to any consumer by any interruption of supply of any kind whatever be the reason therefor unless the interruption is exclusively attributable to the negligence of the Board
 Reference is also necessary to the form of agreement for purchase of electricity supply con sumption
There are forms and agreements 141 for high tension as well as low tension
The relevant terms in the form of high tension agree ment are as follows Clause 5 Obligation to comply with requirements of Acts and Terms and Conditions of supply IWe further undertake to comply with all the requirements of the Indian Electricity Act the  the Rules thereun der and the terms and conditions of supply notified by the Board from time to time Clause 10 Board s right to vary terms of Agree ment IWe agree that the Board shall have the unilateral right to vary from time to time the terms and conditions of supply under this agreement by spe cial or general proceedings
 The Low Tension agreement contained inter alia the following Clause 9 Obligation of consumer to pay all charges levied by Board From the date this agreement comes into force IWe shall be bound by and shall pay the Board maximum demand charges energy charges surcharges meter rents and other charges if any as prescribed in the terms and conditions of supply notified by the Board from time to time for the particular class of consumer to which IWe belong
In particular the Board shall have the right to enhance the rates chargeable for supply of electricity according to exigencies
 Clause 10 Board s right to vary terms of Agree ment IWe agree that the Board shall have the unilateral right to vary from time to time the terms and conditions of supply under this agreement by special or gener al proceedings
 These provisions indicate that the Board is under a duty to supply electricity to consumers who enter into contracts with the Board
The duty to supply however is inherently limited by its capacity
If the Board is unable to supply electricity to meet the full demand of consumers then neces sarily it can only make limited supply
Clause 68 of the Terms and Conditions of the Power Tariffs establishes these features
The first part of clause 68 speaks of the duty of the Board to make all endeavours to meet the whole demand of the consumers
Clause 68 also confers power on the Board to stagger sup ply
It is obvious that if the Board cannot generate the energy required to meet the full demand of the consumer it will have to curtail the supply
The appellants realise that the Board has power to curtail supply
But the appellants contend that the Board has No power to exempt certain categories of consumers and impose different percentage of cut
142 The appellants contend that the Board has no power under section 49 of the 1948 Act either to impose different percentage of cuts in the supply to consumers or to impose penalty
The appellants contend that only if the Board introduced principles by making regulations under section 79j of the 1948 Act then the Board could have applied these principles in imposing cuts
The contentions of the appellants are unsound
Sec tion 494 of the 1948 Act states that in fixing the tariffs and terms and conditions for the supply of electricity the Board shall not show undue preference to any person
This section embodies the same principle which is enunciated in Article 14 of our Constitution
The Board is a State for the purpose of Part III of our Constitution
In the present case we are however not concerned with the application of Article 14
All that requires to be appre ciated is that the provisions of Article 14 of our Constitu tion and section 494 of the 1948 Act are similar in prin ciple
It is the principle of equality or non discrimina tion
Section 494 of the 1948 Act does not mean a mechan ical equal treatment It is fairly settled that equality before the law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as though they were the same
The obliga tion not to discriminate involves both the right and the obligation to make reasonable classification on the basis of relevant factors
To illustrate cutting down 50 per cent of the needs of a hospital and the needs of industries producing consumer goods cannot be treated on the same footing
It would be justifiable to treat them with refer ence to their urgency their social utility and also the impact on the conservation and economics in the available supply of electric power
The guidance is clearly fur nished by the principles embodied in section 494 of the 1948 Act similar to Article 14 of our Constitution
The recognition of the fact that the Board can introduce rationing by making a regulation under section 79j of the 1948 Act necessarily involves a concession that the Board has the power to enforce rationing and to enunciate the principle for determining the scheme of such rationing
A regulation can be made only in the exercise of a power which exists in the Act
The making of a regulation is not a new source of power but regulates the exercise of power which exists
Section 491 of the 1948 Act therefore gives a general power which could be regulated by making of a regu lation
The language of section 49 of the 1948 Act shows that the power can be exercised without making any regulation
The expression regulation occurring in section 491 is qualified by the expression If any
It is therefore manifest that if the power is existing it must be exercised according to valid principles consistent with the provisions of section 494 of the 1948 Act
This Court rejected the suggestion that the President or the Governor cannot settle terms and conditions of the public servants without making rules under Article 309 of the Constitution
If regulations were made such regulation would have to be in conformity with section 494 of the 1948 Act and in the exercise of its power the Board would have to abide by regulations
143 The argument of the appellants that section 22 B of the 1910 Act which confers power on the State Government to form an opinion as to the necessity or expediency of taking action for the maintenance of the supply and securing the equitable distribution of energy exhausts the power of distribution of energy and the Board has no power under section 49 of the 1948 Act to operate upon the field of supply of electricity is unsound
Section 22 B of the 1910 Act is only enabling while the Board must inevitably curtail supplies
If the Board must curtail supplies it is curious to
suggest that the cuts must not be based on rational equitable basis consistent with principles of reasonable classification within the meaning of section 494 of the 1948 Act
Section 22 B of the 1910 Act was introduced in 1959
It did not expressly or impliedly repeal or cut down the content of the power of the Board in section 49 of the 1948 Act which was enacted in 1948 and reproduced in 1966
There is no conflict in the existence of power at different levels
The higher authority may have the power to over ride the order of the lower authority
Powers under sec tion 22 B of the 1910 Act and under Section 49 of the 1948 Act may have some overlapping features
Section 49 contains a much larger power because the Board is the authority primarily charged with all aspects of development and supply under sections 18 and 49 of the 1948 Act
It may be stated here that on 6 April 1972 the State order effected cut in supply
The Board also fixed quotas from March 1972
Between 7 July 1972 and 16 August 1972 there was no cut in supply
The order under section 22 B of the 1910 Act was not effective after the month of July 1972
The orders of the Board effecting cut in supply were effective prior to July 1972 and also from August 1972
The appellants enjoyed unrestricted supply of electricity at ordinary rates from 7 July 1972 to 16 August 1972
The appellants did not raise any contention in the High Court that the State order of April 1972 was effective all throughout
If such facts had been challenged the Board would have given proper materials by way of facts to show that the Board order was to the knowledge of everybody not effective after the month of July 1972
When the Board on 7 July 1972 decided to remove all the restrictions imposed earlier it is manifest that the Board tried best to maintain the terms and conditions mentioned in clause 68 of the Power Tariffs of the State Electricity Board
The Board filed in the High Court the statement showing consumer requirement of energy in one column actual generation in another column consumers  requirement of demand in Mega Watts in another column and actual demand in Mega Watts in still another column from the month of February 1973 right upto June 1975
The High Court held  that the correctness of the statement was not disputed by the appellants and the High Court did not doubt the accuracy of the statement
The High Court held that the actual consumer requirement has all throughout been more than the actual generation
The fact that the actual generation has been lower than the consumers requirements shows that the Board has in a fair and just manner imposed cuts whenever situation merited the same
There is no conflict between the order of the Govern ment in April 1972 and the orders of the Board in the year 1975 for these 144 reasons
The restrictions imposed by the Government ceased on 7 July 1972 when in the opinion of the Government scarci ty conditions disappeared
This is manifest from the Government Order dated 2 August 1975
The appellants cannot be allowed to urge that the Government Order of the year 1972 continued after 7 July 1972
The appellants acted upon the footing that the restrictions had been lifted and consumption was even more than their normal maximum demand on normal rates
Even if the Government Order of 1972 continued the restrictions imposed by the Government Order and the Board Order were cumulative and not contradic tory
The Government Order was addressed to the consumers not to consume in excess of 75 per cent of their normal maximum demand
If the appellants sought any relief in respect of consumption in violation of the order under section 22 B of the 1910 Act it would be an offence under section 41 of the 1910 Act
Such a contention cannot be allowed to be raised
Section 494 of the 1948 Act casts a duty on the Board not to show any undue preference in fixing the tariff and terms and condition
Clauses 67
and 68 of the Power Tariffs
show that the Board shall have the right to stagger or curtail supply of electricity to any consumer according to operational and other exigencies
The Board can therefore release supply or block the same areawise and has no means of enforcing the quota except through sanctions
Such sanctions can take any reasonable form either disconnection in case of gross and persistent defaults or the lesser sanction of enhanced tariff
The power to enhance the tariff is included in section 49 of the 1948 Act
The expression that the Board may supply electricity on such terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit in section 49 1  is related to the terms and conditions of the agreement referred to above
Section 49 of the 1948 Act in sub section 1 confers power on the Board to supply electricity to any person not being a licensee upon such terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit
This power contains the power to regulate and ration supply
The terms and conditions to which reference has been made make explicit what is implicit in the power
The terms and conditions contain the power of the Board to enhance the dates
Section 493 of the 1948 Act states that the Board has power to fix different tariffs for the supply of electricity having regard to the geographical position of any area the nature of the supply and purpose for which supply is required and any other relevant factors
The expression any other relevant factors is not to be construed ejusdern generis because there is no genus of the relevant factors
The combined effect of section 49 of the 1948 Act and the terms and conditions of supply is that having regard to the nature of supply and other relevant factors particularly when there is shortage of electricity the Board has power to enhance the rates
If there is shortage of electricity there is to be restriction on sup ply
The Board can disconnect supply if the quota is exceeded
The Board can also impose higher rates if the quota is exceeded
The imposition of 145 higher rates is only to sanction the rigour of ration by making persons who exceed the quota liable to pay higher rates
The High Court upheld the content of the power of the Board under section 49 of the 1948 Act and also to charge enhanced tariff for exceeding the allotted quota
It is manifest that the requisite power exists in the Board and this Court did not permit the finding of the High Court to be re examined nor the question whether the power had been properly exercised within the limits of section 49 and the terms of the agreement because the terms were directly corelated to the availability of electricity for being supplied
From 7 July 1972 up to 16 August 1972 the appellants enjoyed unrestricted supply at ordinary rates
The appellants took advantage of it
Section 22 B order to the knowledge of everybody was not effective after July 1972
The appellant cannot assert the authority that the Government Order of April 1972 was effective
See South eastern Express Company vs
W 1 Miller1
There is no question of excessive delegation because power is conferred by the statute
In Indian Aluminium Company etc
vs Kerala State Elec tricity Board2 this Court held that under section 493 of the 1948 Act the Board stipulates for special tariff for supply of electricity at specified rates from time to time
For the foregoing reasons the conclusion is that the Board has power under section 49 of the 1948 Act to regulate supply and also to fix higher rates for consumption on excess of quota
There is no conflict between section 22 B of the 1910 Act and section 49 of the 1948 Act with regard to regulating or restricting highter consumption
The appeals are therefore dismissed
There will be no order as to costs because the High Court made similar order
PHP Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Section 22B of the Electricity Act 1910 authorises the State Government if it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining the supply and securing equitable distribution of energy to provide by an order for regulating the supply distribution consump tion or use of the electricity
Section 18 of the Electricity Supply
Act 1948 provides that it shall the duty of the Board to provide electricity as soon as practicable to persons requiring such supply
Under section 49 subject to the provisions
of the Act and the regulations if any made the Board may supply elec tricity to any person upon such terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit
It further provides that in fixing the tariffs and terms and conditions for the supply of electric ity the Board shall not show undue preference to any person
Under the prescribed agreement the Board is given unilateral right to vary from time to time the terms and conditions of supply under the agreement by special or general proceedings
The State Government made an order under section 22B provid ing that the maximum demand limit will he 75 per cent of the average monthly maximum demand over a certain period
It further provided that the supply to consUmers who violated the restrictions was liable to be cut off without notice
Without prejudice to the right to disconnect the supply the Board was also authorised to bill the energy and maximum demand utilised in excess of the limits prescribed at double the tariff rates
The order of the State Government was occasioned because the water position in the Hydro Electric Reservoirs in the State became very unsatisfactory because of failure of monsoon
Secondly sufficient power was not available to meet the needs of the State and thirdly it became necessary to conserve available water with a view to ensure regular and uniform supply of electrical energy during the coming months
The State Electricity Board fixed quotas for consump tion because power generated was not adequate to meet the requirements
An extra charge for consumption of energy beyond the limits of quotas was also introduced by the Board
The Board further cut the quota and enhanced the extra charges
Thereafter the Board passed an order increasing the power cuts at different percentage in different industries
The Board also increased charges to be paid for the excess consumption
This action of the Board was necessitated because of great depletion of levels in the Hydel reservoirs and because no assistance was forthcoming from the neigh bouring States and because there was a heavy increase of agricultural loads
The appellants filed writ petitions in the High COurt praying for a writ or direction that the respondent should be ordered not to collect from the appellants more than normal charges for consumption of electricity and not to disconnect their supply and for a declaration that the restrictions with regard to the imposition of quota and the levy of penalty charges was illegal
134 The High Court held that the Board has power to fix quotas or otherwise to restrict consumption of electrical energy and collect charges at 4 times the normal rates
The appellants obtained special leave limited to the question whether under section 22B of the Electricity Act 1910  it is open to the Board to reduce the supply to anything less than 75 per cent and levy extra charges for excess supply
In an appeal by special leave the appellants contended 1
Section 22B of 1910 Act empowers the State Govt
to control the distribution and consumption of energy
The State Government exercised its powers and reduced the quota to 75
Therefore any further reduction by the Board would be ille gal
Section 49 of the 1948 Act does not confer power on the Board to effect rationing of supply because that would involve excessive delegation of legislative power
There is no guideline in section 49
to reduce the supply and therefore section is bad
In the alternative the contention was that unless the Board made regulations under section 79j it could not ration the supply in exercise of powers under section 49 4
The Board cannot fix different percentages of cuts in the supply to different consumers nor can the Board impose penalty
Dismissing the appeal HELD 
 1 Section 49 which requires the Board not to show undue preference to any person embodies the principle enumerated in Article 14 of the Constitution
It is the principle of equity or non discrimination
However it is fairly settled that equality before law does not mean that the things which were different will be treated as though they were the same
It does not mean an economical equal treatment
It would be justifiable to treat different industries and institutions with reference to their urgencY social utility and also the impact on the conservation and economies in the available supply of electric power
142 B E 2 The recognition of the fact that the Board can introduce rationing by making a regulation under section 79j of the 1948 Act necessarily involves a concession that the Board has a power to enforce rationing and to enunciate the principle and scheme
of such rationing
The making of a regulation is not a new source of power but is the exercise of power which exists
The language of section 48  if any shows that the power can be exercised without making any regulation
The powers conferred on the State Government under section 22B do not exhaust the power of the Board under section 49 of the 1948 Act
There is no conflict in the existence of power at different levels
The higher authority may have the power to override the order of the lower authoritY Powers under section 22B of the 1910 Act and section 49  of the 1948 Act may have some overriding features
Section 49 howev er contains a much larger power because the Board is the authority primarily charged with all aspects of development and supply under the 1948 Act
142 E G 143 A D 3 The appellants cannot be allowed to raise the con tention which was not raised in the High Court that the cut imposed by the State Government under section 22B was effective throughout
If such facts were pleaded in the High Court the Board could have produced materials denying such allega tions
143 D F 4 The orders of the Government and the Board were cumulative and not contradictory
The Board is empowered to fix different rates having regard to the geographical position of any area the nature of the supply and purpose for which supply is required and any other relevant factors
The expression any other relevant factors  is not to be construed ejusdem generis because there is no germs of the relevant factors
144 B D E F 135 5 If there is shortage of electricity there has to be restriction on supply
The Board can disconnect supply if the quota is exceeded
The Board can also impose higher rates if the quota is exceeded
The imposition of higher rates is only to sanction the rigour of ration by making persons who exceed the quota liable to pay higher rates
144 G H 145 A