*The Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.RAO +W.P.No.8962 of 1995 (and batch) %12.8.2004 £M/s. Hind Re-rolling Industries … Petitioner Vs. $A.P.S.E.B. … Respondents !For the petitioner … Mr.D.V.Nagarjuna Babu ^For Respondents … Mr.N.Subba Reddy <Gist: >Head Notes: ? 1. AIR 1977 All 499 2. 1997 (5) SCC 517 3. AIR 1995 SC 1553 4. AIR 1998 SC 1715 5. 2001 (5) ALD 732 (FB) 6. AIR 1986 SC 1999 7. AIR 1993 SC 2005 8. 2000 (1) ALD 49 9. AIR 1986 SC 515 10. AIR 1963 SC 1128 11. AIR 1968 SC 991 12. AIR 1991 SC 1473 13. AIR 1991 AP 141 14.1997 (5) SCC 772 15.1998 (1) ALD 543 16. 1998 (3) ALT 775 17. AIR 1990 AP 58 18. (1976) 2 SCC 167 19. (1983) 4 SCC 508 20. AIR 1984 SC 657 21. AIR 1987 SC 2186 22. (1988) 2 SCC 181 23. (1990) 1 SCC 731 24 (1990) 3 SCC 223 25. (1991) 3 SCC 299 26. (1997) 5 SCC 289 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELVTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.8962 OF 1995, 13628, 19118 of 1996, 17841, 35686, 35907 of 1998, 5694, 7814, 14628 and 15353 of 1999 W.P.No.8962 of 1995: Between: M/s.Hind Re-rolling Industries Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri Preetam Singh …. PETITIONER AND 1. The A.P.S.E.B., Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, rep. by its Member Secretary 2. The Superintending Engineer, APSEB Operation Circle, Secunderabad Circle Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 3. The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation Circle, City-IV, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad. …RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Board in demanding to pay Rs.4,41,000/- towards fixed KVA charges for the release of power supply is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, void. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.D.V.Nagarjuna Babu Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: Mr.N.Subba Reddy, Representing Ms.M.Vinobha Devi (SC for A.P.Transco) WRIT PETITION NO.13628 OF 1996 Between: Lamba Trading Company, 221, Bloton Road, Lamba Estate, Secunderabad – 500 003, rep. by its General Manager, Sri P.J.Jagender ….PETITIONER And 1. The A.P.State Electricity Board, rep. by its Chairman, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. The Superintending Engineer, Electrical Operation, Hyderabad Circle, Mint Compound, APSEB, Hyderabad. 3. The Chief Engineer, Electriicity, Commercial, APSEB, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad … RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demanding Rs.74,000/- towards development charges from the petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper if necessary by declaring the clause 8 of the terms and conditions of supply as highly illegal, improper and contrary to Schedule-VI of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3: MR. N.SUBBA REDDY, REPRESENTING MS. M.VINOBHA DEVI (SC FOR AP.TRANSCO) WRIT PETITIO NO.19118 OF 1996 Between: M/s. Happy Home Castle, 11-5-8, Nampally, Hyderabad rep. bty its Managing Partner, Dr.Shaiudin Ahmed …PETITIONER And 1. The A.P.State Electricity Board, rep. by its Chairman, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Engineer (Electricity), Metropolitan Zone, APSEB, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 4. The Divisional Engineer (Electrical), Operation, City-I, Division, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. … RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demanding Rs.1,21,055/- towards development charges from the petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper if necessary by declaring the clause 8 of the terms and conditions of supply as highly illegal, improper and contrary to Schedule-VI of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. D.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: MR. N.SUBBA REDDY, REPRESENTING MS.M.VINOBHA DEVI (SC FOR AP. TRANSCO) WRIT PETITION NO.17841 OF 1998 Between: M/s.Kamineni Steel Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. 2-4-97/C, Third Flor, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad, rep. by its Director Maheschand Agarwal … PETITIONER And 1. A.P.State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderbaad. 2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, APSEB, Sangareddy, Medak District. …RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the collection of development charges pursuant to the Lr.No.CEE/Coml/BL-A1/F.No.MDK-106/D.No.328/94, dt.19.10.1994 of the 1st respondent for the release of additional load of 500 KVA from the petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unauthroised by declaring clause 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply as illegal, unjust, improper and contrary to Clause-VI of the Schedule to Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: MR. N.SUBBA REDDY, REPRESENTING MS. M.VINOBHA DEVI (SC FOR AP.TRANSCO) WRIT PETITION NO.35686 OF 1998 Between: M/s.Sree Hariom Steel, Yenkepally (V), Moinabad (M), Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Proprietor, R.M.Agarwal … PETITIONER 1. A.P.State Electricity Board, rep. by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation APSEB, Ibrahimbagh, Hyderabad. …RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the collection of Development Charges of Rs.40,000/- pursuant to the Lr.No.ADE/OP/I’bagh/D.No.416, dt.7.12.1998 of the 2nd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unauthroised by declaring Clause 8 of Terms and Conditions of Supply, as illegal, unjust, improper and contrary to the Clause 8 of Terms and Conditions of Supply, as illegal, unjust, improper and contrary to the Clause-VI, of the Schedule to Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: MR.N.SUBBA REDDY, REPRESENTING MS.M.VINOBHA DEVI (SC FOR AP.TRANSCO) WRIT PETITION NO.35907 OF 1998 Between: M/s. Arogyamatha Formation House, 1/1885, Church Compound, Station Road, Cuddapah, rep. by its Sister Superior, Sr.Catherine.M. …PETITIONER 1. A.P.State Electricity Board, rep. by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Engineer, A.P.S.E.B. Vidyut Bhavan, Prakash Nagar, Cuddapah. 3. The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Operation, Sub-Division, Cuddapah. …RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Lr.No.ADE/O/CDP/Se/F. /D. No.1054/98, dt.18.11.1998 of the third respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unauthroised by declaring Clause 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply as illegal, unjust, improper and contrary to the Clause-VI of the Schedule to Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: MR. N.SUBBA REDDY, REPRESENTING MS.M.VINOBHA DEVI (SC FOR AP.TRANSCO) WRIT PETITION NO.5694 OF 1999 Between: 1. Gulam Jeelani, S/o. Gulam Nabi, R/o.23-2-199, Moghalpura, Hyderabad. 2. Abdul Rahman, S/o.Abdul Aziz, R/o.23-2-12/1, Moghalpura, Hyderbad. 3. Najamunnissa Begum, W/o.Shaik Mehmood, Moghalpura, Hyderabad. 4. Mohd. Ali Taher, S/o.Mohd. Fareed Taher, Moghalpura, Hyderabad. …PETITIONERS And 1. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director. 2. Chief Engineer, City Zone, Transco, Charminar, Hyderabad. 3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, District IX, Chairminar Sub-Division, City III, Transco, Charminar, Hyderabad. …RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring Condition No.s8 and 40.3 of the terms and conditions of supply of Electrical energy by the A.P.S.E.B. and the letters dt.2.2.1999, calling upon the petitioners to pay Development Charges and Additional Consumption Deposit in respect of their service connections bearing Nos.x2-5364, x2-6527, x2-6762 and x2- 8834 respectively as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of Indian Electricity Act of 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice and issue a consequential direction to the respondents not to collect the Development Charges and Additional Consumption Deposits. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. S. SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: MR.N. SUBBA REDDY, REPRESENTING MS.M.VINOBHA DEVI (SC FOR AP.TRANSCO) WRIT PETITION NO.7814 OF 1999 Between: M/s. Ahmed and Co., S.No.264 and 265, Gaganpahad Village, Rajendranagar (M), Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Managing Director, Anwar Ali Khan …PETITIONERS And 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., rep. by its M.D., Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Ranga Reddy Circle, A.P.Transco, Hyderabad. 3. The Chief Engineer, Metro Zone, TRANSCO, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. …RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring (i) the collection of Development Charges of Rs.2,25,000/- pursuant to the Lr.No.SE/O/RRC/Coml./D.R.No.514/98-99, D.No.6535, dt.27.3.1999 of the 2nd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unauthroised by declaring Clause 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply and (ii) the action of the respondents in requiring the petitioner to install the transformer of its own for the release of power supply as illegal, unjust, improper and contrary to the Clause-VI of the Schedule to Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: MR.N.SUBBA REDDY, REPRESENTING MS.M.VINOBHA DEVI (SC FOR AP.TRANSCO) WRIT PETITION NO.14628 OF 1999 Between: M/s. Mukka Industries, Binny Modern Rice Mill, Jammijunta Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District, rep. by its Partner, M.Jitendra Gupta …PETITIONER And 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P., (Transco) Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist. 3. The Divisional Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P.Transco, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. 4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, A.P.Transco, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District. …RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring conditions (iii) and (iv) stipulated in respect of L.T.Category-III (B) Industrial Operational Category in B.P.Ms.No.62 (Oppnl. & Comml.) dated 28.12.1998 and Clause-8 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of A.P.S.E.B. as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the letter No.SE/OP/ANR/Comml./F.No.Docket/D.No.1221 dated 19.6.1999 of the 2nd respondent and the letter No.DEE-OP/HZB. Comml. F.D.No.1214/99 dated 3.7.1999 of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction and unauthorized. Counsel for the petitioner: MR. D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: MR. N.SUBBA REDDY, REPRESENTING MS.M.VINOBHA DEVI (SC FOR AP.TRANSCO) WRIT PETITION NO.15353 OF 1999 Between: M/s.Sundar Steels & Alloys Pvt., Ltd., rep. by its Executive Director, Madhusudhan Santhalia, 229 and 230, Bangalore Highway, Gaganpahad, Ranga Reddy District. …PETITIONER And 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P.Transco, R.R.Circle, Mint Compound Hyderabad. 3. The Divisional Engineer, Rural South, A.P.Transco Saroornagar, Hyderabad. …RESPONDETNS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demanding the petitioner to pay development charges/service line charges for restoration of its contracted maximum demand of 2100 KVA as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and void and consequently set aside the Clause 13 of Memo No.CE (Comml) A/1/Temp. deration/22/87-965 dated 20.9.1993 of the 1st respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. D.V.NARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: MR. N.SUBBA REDDY, REPRESENTING MS.M.VINOBHA DEVI (SC FOR AP.TRANSCO) The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.8962 OF 1995; 13628 AND 19118 OF 1996; 17841, 35686 AND 35907 OF 1998; 5694, 7814, 14628, AND 15353 of 1999 COMMON ORDER: In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are consumers of electricity supply by the respondents. In some cases, they are existing consumers and others are new consumers, who applied for service connection. The respondents while considering applications made by petitioners for supplying the electricity or for enhancing existing load, advised the petitioners to pay the estimated cost of necessary charges and service line charges to enable the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners. Insofar as the demand for payment of service line charges is concerned, the petitioners have no grievance. The respondents while giving estimate of the cost involved for giving power supply also imposed development charges. In the case of M/s.Hind Re-Rolling Industries, petitioner in Writ Petition No.8962 of 1995, the Divisional Electrical Engineer informed the petitioner that an amount of Rs.5,53,400/- (Rupees five lakhs fifty three thousand and four hundred only), including an amount of Rs.4,41,000/- (Rupees four lakhs forty one thousand only) towards fixed KVA charges @ Rs.900/- (Rupees nine hundred only) per KVA is payable by the petitioner for availing power supply. In other cases also the petitioners were asked to pay development charges. Aggrieved by which all these Writ Petitions are filed. In W.P.Nos.13628 and 19118 of 1996; 17841, 35686 and 35907 of 1998; and 5694, 7814 and 14628 of 1999, Clause 8 of the Revised Terms and conditions of supply of Electricity is challenged as being ultra vires. As the core question involved in these Writ Petitions is common, it is expedient to dispose of all the Writ Petitions by common order. Counter affidavits have been filed in W.P.Nos.8962 of 1995, 35686 of 1998, 5694, 7814 and 14628 of 1999. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.8962 of 1995 by the Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations) Hyderabad. It is stated that M/s.Hind Re- Rolling Industries was initially given power supply in 1967 for a Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) of 350 KVA. The agreement was terminated on 1.5.1979 and a fresh supply with CMD of 200 KVA was given in 1980. The agreement was again terminated on 28.7.1993 and metering equipment and other infrastructure was dismantled in March, 1994. The petitioner has not paid any cost of service line in 1967. In 1995, the petitioner approached for release of supply afresh for CMD of 490 KVA with connected load of 1000 Horse Power (HP). An estimate for a sum of Rs.1,76,200/- (Rupees one lakh seventy six thousand and two hundred only) towards service line charges, including a sum of Rs.63,376/- (Rupees sixty three thousand three hundred and seventy six only) towards metering equipment and CTPT was prepared. In relation to the same, the petitioner was asked to pay development charges of Rs.4,41,000/- (Rupees four lakhs forty one thousand only) @ Rs.900/- (Rupees nine hundred only) per KVA. Said estimate contains costs of works which are essential for carrying out the works and do not include the costs of existing line. The development charges were calculated in accordance with B.P.Ms.No.627, dt.14.12.1994, which was issued in exercise of powers under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereafter called, the Electricity Supply Act). It is also stated in the counter affidavit that development charges are intended to meet part of the cost of extension of works as the surplus available from the tariff revenue is not adequate to carry out capital works for laying EHT, HT, LT lines and establishment of extra high tension and 33 KVA sub-stations. The agreement with the petitioner was terminated in 1993 and therefore he is considered as a new consumer governed by B.P.Ms.No.627, dt.14.12.1994. The amount of development charges is a statutory liability and it is competent for the Board to impose the same under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Duba V.Nagarjuna Babu submits that Condition No.8 of Revised Terms and Conditions (hereafter called, the conditions of supply) is ultra vires the power of the Electricity Board under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act. The concept of development charges has not been defined either in the Electricity Act 1910 (for short, the Electricity Act) or in the Electricity Supply Act. As per the scheme of Electricity Act, it is the duty of the Board to bear the charges for transmission line and in the absence of any procedure, the Board cannot impose development charges, especially when service line charges are collected from the consumer. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the Board has such power to collect development charges, the same cannot be collected from HT consumers, without disclosure as to what is the development required justifying such levy. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on U.P.State Electricity Board v. Lakshmi Devi, Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd., Orissa Stte Electricity Board v. M/s.IPI Steel Limited, M/s.Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P.State Electricity Board, and Klayman Porcelains Ltd. v. Superintending Engineer, APSEB. Learned Counsel for the A.P.Transmission Corporation, Sri N.Subba Reddy, submits that the Electricity Board has power to adjust its tariffs. While so doing, it is always permissible for the Board to levy development charges, which are also provided for by the agreement. He would submits that there is no undisclosed or vague element in the development charges and as per Condition No.45 of conditions of supply every consumer is deemed to have full knowledge of the provisions of the Electricity Act, Electricity Supply Act and other Rules and Regulations, and the impugned levy was estimated in accordance with revised conditions of supply. Sri Subba Reddy placed strong reliance on decisions reported i n K.S.E.Board v. M/s.S.N.Govinda Prabhu & Bros. (hereafter called, Govinda Prabhu case) , Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. v. A.P.State Electricity Board, and KCP Ltd., Guntur v. A.P.State Electricity Board. As indicated earlier, the core question is whether condition No.8 is ultra vires and whether it was competent for the Board to levy development charges in addition to service line charges ? It would be necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Electricity Act as well as Electricity Supply Act. The Electricity Board established under Section 5 of the Electricity Supply Act is deemed to be a licensee under the Electricity Act. By reason of Sections 26 and 26A of the Electricity Supply Act, except certain provisions enumerated in proviso to Section 26 all other provisions of the Electricity Act are applicable to Electricity Board. Section 18 of the Electricity Supply Act reads as under: 18. General duties of the Board: - Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board shall be charged with the following general duties, namely: a. to arrange, in co-ordination with the Generating Company or Generating Companies, if any, operating in the State, for the supply of electricity that may be required within the State and for the transmission and distribution of the same, in the most efficient and economical manner with particular reference to those areas which are not for the time being supplied or adequately supplied with electricity: b. to supply electricity as soon as practicable to a licensee or other person requiring such supply if the Board is competent under this Act so to do. c. to exercise such control in relation to the generation, distribution and utilisation of electricity within the State as is provided for by or under this Act; d. to collect data on the demand for, and the use of, electricity and to formulate perspective plans in coordination with the Generating Company or Generating Companies, if any, operating in the State for he generation, transmission and supply of electricity within the State; e. to prepare and carry out schemes for transmission, distribution and generally for promoting the use of electricity within the State; and f. to operate the generating stations under its control in co-ordination with the Generating Company or Generating Companies, if any, operating in the State and with the Government or any other Board or agency having control over a power system. The duties of the Electricity Board, inter alia, include the duty to prepare and carry out schemes for transmission, distribution and for promoting use of electricity in the State. The planning and execution of schemes for generating and transmitting electricity are entrusted to the Electricity Board. It is for this reason the Statute confers powers on Electricity Board under Sections 49 and 79 of the Electricity Supply Act. Section 49 of the Electricity Supply reads as under. 49. Provision for the sale of electricity by the Board to persons other than licensees: (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 not being a licensee upon such terms and conditions as the Board thinks fit and may for the purposes of such supply frame uniform tariffs. (2) In fixing the uniform tariffs, the Board shall have regard to all or any of the following factors, namely: a. the nature of the supply and the purposes for which it is required; b. The coordinated development of the supply and distribution of electricity within the State in the most efficient and economical manner, with particular reference to such development in areas not for the time being served or adequately served by the licensee; c. the simplification and standardization of methods and rates of charges for such supplies; d. the extension and cheapening of supplies of electricity to sparsely developed areas. (3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall derogate from the power of the Board, if it considers it necessary or expedient to fix different tariffs for the supply of electricity to any person not being a licensee, 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. (4) In fixing the tariff and terms and conditions for the supply of electricity, the Board shall not show preference to any person. The power to make regulations providing for all matters, like principles governing fixation of power tariff, principles governing supply of electricity are conferred on the Board under Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act lays down broad principles for fixing tariffs. While fixing tariffs, the Board has to take into consideration the nature of supply, the simplification and standardization methods and rights of authorities, transmission and supply of cheap electricity to sparsely developed area and to carry out development, supply of electricity within the States in the most viable and economic manner with particular reference to such development in areas not for the time being served or adequately served by the licensee. Clauses (b) and (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act have great relevance for the Board to while fixing tariffs. The costs involved for development, supply and distribution of electricity to remote areas with reference to development of remote areas