1. These appeals and special leave petitions of a batch merit dismissal on the basis of the decision of this Court in Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. v. A. P. SEB. Some of the learned counsel for the appellant appearing in these cases have urged that the said case had as a rule laid down that the demand for security deposit is to be made on the basis of average consumption but in the instant cases the securities have not been worked out on the basis of such average. It appears that instantly the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking has evolved a pattern on the basis of consumption in a block of three months and has asked the appellants to pay additional security on the basis thereof within a time schedule

2. What was noticed in the Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. case was based on the pleadings of the parties, which cannot be held to be a rule absolute. It cannot be forgotten that the nature of the transaction relating to the security deposit is an adjustable advance payment of consumption charge approximately estimated for a period of three months. The concept cannot be uniform in all situations. Additionally the matter as such was not raised before the High Court. The argument raised is thus rejected. Consequently these appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed but without any order as to costs. We may record that by interim orders of this Court in each respective case, deposit of a certain percentage of the security deposit as demanded was stayed. We now direct that the entire payment, whatever is due, shall be paid by the appellants/petitioners to the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking in three equal instalments payable in each succeeding calendar month commencing from August 1993.