S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a partnership firm, seeks a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in charging it for utilising the power for the manufacture of re-rolling items as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and void.

( 2 ) IN support of the writ petition, one of the petitioners partner gave the affidavit. He states that the petitioner sought for supply of High Tension power "for establishing an industrial unit under S. S. I, sector" and that the 1st respondent. e. the Chief Engineer, Electricity. Western Zone. A. P. S. H. B. gave feasibility report dated 14-7-1988 and that thereafter the petitioner was required to pay by the 2nd respondent. e. the Divisional Engineer. Operation, Zone I, A. P. S. E. B. by his letter, dated 16-7-1988 a sum of Rs. 1,32,500. 00towards security deposit. Rs. 54,000. 00 towards service line charges and Rs. 10,000. 00 towards service connection charges and thereafter, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Andhra Pradesh Stale Electricity Board (the Board for short) dated 7-12-1988 after paying the said amount. He then states as follows:--"subsequently, after all the necessary permissions and sanction are obtained, including the licence for rerolling of non ferrous metals out of brass, aluminium and scrap alloys, the power was released to the petitioner on 5-8-1989. Thereafter, the petitioner noticing that there is an error in the agreement about the line of manufacture, addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent on 24-8-1989 informing that the power supply is needed for Dhall Mill and Re-rolling Mill, duly enclosing the S. S. I, registration certificate granted to the petitioner for the manufacture of retelling products. The 2nd respondent vide his letter dated 21-10-1989 informed the petitioner that he has to obtain permission for running a re-rolling mill in the premises. Thereafter, the petitioner in his letter dated 26-10-1989 informed the respondents that permission to manufacture the re-rolling items was already obtained by the competent authorities. e. the District Industries Centre, as is evident in the S. S. I, registration granted to them in Ref. No. 01/08/52359/prov. /ssi/rural dated 12-4-1989, and requested them to revise the agreement accordingly. "he further slates that meter readings were being taken by the concerned authorities of the Board and that bills were being issued for the energy consumed from time to time and that the petitioner was paying the same. He contends that the respondents were aware that the petitioners line of activity was retelling. While, so, the petitioner received notice in letter No. ADF7 DXI/ziii/f. H. T. /d. NO. 1128/89, dated 7-11-1989 of the 3rd respondent. e. the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Distribution -XI, A. P. S. E. B. alleging that it was noticed, on an inspection made by ADE/dxi/zone III, Hyderabad on 26-8-1989, that the petitioner was "utilising power for the purpose other than for which it was sanctioned" and that it was guilty of malpractice and that enquiry would be made by the Superintending Engineer, Assessments, Hyderabad, who would fix the amount of loss sustained by the Board, and that the petitioner may represent to him in that regard, and that provisionally the value of the energy misused by it was estimated at Rs. 2,15,564. 80 Ps. and that to avoid disconnection it may pay Rs. 1,07,782. 40 Ps. plus Rs. 300. 00 towards supervision charges within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice Subsequenlty, the petitioner was also issued by the 3rd respondent letter No. ADE/d. XI/c. III/f. HT/d. No. 298/89. dated 10-11-1989 stating as follows :--"on 4-11-1989 at 18. 30hrs. your H. T. service M/s. Ramnath Omkarmal situated at 19-5-16/5. Bahadurpura was inspected by Asstt. Engineer/ Dist. XI and the Circle Inspector. A. P. T. S. It was noticed that the power supply was being utilised for steel re-rolling. e. manufacturing of M. S. Rods of different sixes without proper licence or permission which constitutes violation of Terms and Conditions of Electric supply vide para 3. 5. 1. Therefore, the power supply to your H. T. service is disconnected today. e. , dated 10-11-1989 for want of proper permission/licence from the competent authority for manufacturing activity of Steel Re-rolling Mill. "in effect, these two letters are being questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner received the two letters at the same time.

( 3 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that disconnection of supply of energy to it was effected without any prior notice and that the provisional estimate was without any basis and was unjustified because its unit had gone into production only in the first week of August, 1989 and that the authorities of the Board were aware of the line of activity of the petitioner and that even assuming that there were any malpractices they were only technical in nature and that, therefore, the provisional estimate was ex facie illegal. On behalf of the petitioner, it is further submitted that the petitioner itself voluntarily addressed the Board on 24-8-1989 informing that the agreement was singed oversight since the S. S. I, registration dated 12-4-1989 was obtained by it for the manufacture of re rolling out of brass, aluminium and scrap alloys which would enable it to manufacture the ingots and billets" and that "therefore, the question of detecting any malpractice and noticing of misutilising the power for the purposes other than for which it was sanctioned is unsustainable and untenable. "

( 4 ) THE writ petition was admitted on 15-11-1989 and on the same day, in W. P. M. P. No. 2l 204 of 1989, a learned single Judge of this court directed the respondents to restore power supply to the petitioner forth with, pending further orders on that petition. Subsequently, by order dated 1-12-1989 in W. P. M. P. No. 22215 of 1989, letter dated 7-11-1989 of the 3rd respondent was suspended, pending further orders on that petition.

( 5 ) THOUGH the 2nd respondent gave his counter affidavit on 22-12-1989, it was not presented in court till 18-11-1996. e. till after the writ petition was posted for final disposal. Petition for vacation of the orders granting interim directions and interim suspension was also not made. It is stated in that counter affidavit that the petitioner obtained service connection for the purpose of running a steel rerolling mill by misrepresenting to the respondents that the supply was required for running a dal mill. It is also stated that a copy of the partnership agreement, under which the petitioner firm was constituted, was also submitted by the petitioner at the lime of making the application for supply of energy for running a dal mill and that in the said agreement it was mentioned that the partnership business"shall be for running a dal mill and also dealing in grains, oils, kirana pulses, cereals and khandsari sugar, etc. ". His Further stilted that a copy of pro visional registration certificate was also furnished along with that application, which showed that the District Industries Centre, Musheerabad issued that certificate to the petitioner for the purpose of dal mill alone. It was on that basis that the 1st respondent issued proceedings for supply of energy to the petitioner for running a dal mill and on that basis a H. T. agreement was entered into by the petitioner for the supply of electrical energy for the purpose of dal mill. On the basis of those facts, the 2nd respondent submits in that affidavit that it was naive on the part of the petitioner to conted that the omission of manufacturing of steel rerolling in the agreement was an error and that the same was noticed by the petitioner after the release of supply. It is further asserted by him that though the petitioner might have obtained a licence from the Industries department in respect of manufacturing of rerolling prior to the release of supply, these respondents were kept, completely in the dark either about its proposal for running the rerolling industry or its obtaining licence for running the said industry -- even the licence produced by the petitioner on 24-8-1989 related to manufacturing of rerolling of non-ferrous metals out of raw materials of brass and aluminium scrap and not for running steel rerolling industry. He also asserts that only on 26-8-1989 the 3rd respondent discovered during his inspection that the petitioner was using the energy being supplied to it for the purpose of running steel rerolling mill and not a dal mill. He also asserts that the alleged letter dated 24-8-1989 referred to by the petitioners partner in his affidavit was actually submitted in the 2nd respondents office on 28-8-1989 and, that, therefore, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the inspection was done after knowing the contents of that letter is not correct to the knowledge of that partner. The 2nd respondent further states in that affidavit as follows :--"it is submitted that after the inspection on 26-8-1989 and on receipt of me letter from the petitioner on 28- 8-1989 I have address ed a letter to the petitioner in which it is pointed out that the contention of the petitioner that the H. T. agreement was entered into for dal mill omitting rerolling mill by oversight is not correct and I have inter alia asked the petitioner to obtain permission for running rerolling mill. The petitioner wrote reply on 26-10-1989 saying that since he had Already sent revised agreement including for the purpose of running rerolling mill, he had requested me to enter into a revised agreement. Since the permission has to be accorded by headquarters at Vidyut Soudha, I have sent the proposal for permission to enter into the revised agreement to the Board through SE/op/hyderabad which is proper channel. The SE in his letter dated 10-11-1989, while returning the proposal, turned down me requst of the petitioner for giving permission for running the rerolling mill in view of Boards Memo No. CET/142/f4/283 dated 13-9-1988 under which the Board had imposed a ban on the release of power to METALLURGICAL, RE-ROLLING AND CARBIDE units. It is submitted that the receipt of the letter from the SE had exposed the foul play of the petitioner. It was realised that the petitioner who obviously knew well that there was ban on the release of power supply with respect to rerolling mills entered into agreement with the Board for the ostensible, reason of running dal mill and that in the guise of the dal mill, the petitioner has been running the steel rerolling industry. This action of the petitioner apart from mala fide and misleading constitutes clear malapractice under Cl. 39. 1. 5. of the Terms and Conditions. Under the said clause, use of electricity for the purpose other than that for which the supply is given by the Board amounts to malpractice. The action has, therefore, been taken by the 3rd respondent who is who is competent authority and a provisional assessment notice was served on the petitioner after making provisional assessment as per the Terms and Conditions. "he contends that disconnection made on 10-11-1989 was in exercise of powers under H. P. Ms. No. 1079. dated 3-10-1989. which provided that, if it was found during inspection that the consumer was availing supply without licence or permission, the supply should be disconnected after giving notice to the consumer.

( 6 ) IT is unfortunate that this counter affidavit was not filed in court till 18-11 -1996. On 29-11 -1996 we directed the learned Standing Counsel for the Board to produce all the records and also to explain how the respondents released energy to the petitioners unit without finding out whether it was a dal mill or a steel rerolling mill. We also directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to plate before us all the material on which the petitioner relies with a supporting affidavit.

( 7 ) ONE Mr. D. K. Kedia, describing himself as partner of the petitioner, filed on 27-11-1996 an affidavit in reply to counter affidavit filed on 18-11-1996. Therein, he contends that the petitioner never misrepresented to the respondents at any point of time and that though in the initial stages in the year 1988 the petitioner proposed to set up a dal mill, subsequently it changed its mind and proposed to establish a steel rerolling mill. He also stales that before the release of supply, the petitioner obtained the approval of Chief Electrical inspector to Government in respect of the load/motors connected in the petitioners premises and that after inspection only the Chief Electrical Inspector approved the load by endorsement dated 26-5-1989 and that in his letter dated 16-6-1989 he approved the load giving the list of motors/machines that were connected in the petitioners premises. He also states that before the release of power supply, the officials of the Board inspected the petitioners premises and after satisfying themselves that the motors/ machinery erected in the petitioners unit were in accordance with the load approval of the Chief Electrical Inspector, supply of energy was released to the petitioners unit. He submits that under the circumstances, the officials of the Board cannot aver that the release of energy was to a dal mill and not to a steel rerolling mill. He also stated that the ban under Memo, dated 13-9-1988 imposing ban on release of power to rerolling units was for future and could not be applied to units which were released power supply prior to 13-9-1988. He also questioned the assessment made and the disconnection effected on 10-11-1989 on the ground that it contravened Condition No. 39. 6 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of electrical energy by the Board) the Conditions for short ).

( 8 ) MR. D. K. Kedia also filed an additional affidavit dated 1-2-1997 stating that the petitioner was an unregistered firm at the time of filing of the writ petition on 33-11-1989 and that it was dissolved in the year 1990 and that thereafter it has been only a proprietary concern and that he is its sole proprietor. He also states that by oversight he stated that he was a partner, in his counter affidavit of Nov. 1996. In this additional affidavit he further states that before the release of supply of energy the petitioner applied to the Medical and Health department mentioning the manufacturing activity as dal mill and steel rerolling mili and that the power was released to the rerolling mill on 5-8-1989 and that the Assistant Divisional Engineering of the Board inspected the entire installations before releasing of power supply. He also states that subsequently he applied for additional load and when that was refused, he approached this court by way of Writ Petition No. 4617 of 1993 and Writ Appeal No. 708 of 1993.

( 9 ) MR. Kedia filed another additional affidavit dated 11-3-1997 stating that"no separate application was made on behalf of the petitioner for supply of power to rerolling mill, but the relevant permissions from the municipality and industries departments were submitted to the assistant Divisional Engineer. "

( 10 ) TO complete this part of the narration, we may state here that Writ Appeal No. 708 of 1993 preferred by the petitioner, represented by its proprietor Dinesh Kumar Kedia, was allowed by order dated 17-8-1993 in the following manner:-- "pending disposal of the Writ Petition No. 16038/89 the appellant made an application to Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board on 26-2-1992 for the release of additional load of 195 KVA. That application was rejected by the Electricity Board in its proceedings dated 29-3-1993. Aggrieved by it, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 4617/93. As the writ petition was dismissed, this writ appeal has been filed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that pending disposal of Writ Petition No. 16038/89 the Electricity Board is not justified in rejecting the application for release of additional load of 195 KVA. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board that the appellant who has indulged in malpractice cannot be permitted to have the benefit of additional load. particularly when the writ petition filed by it is still pending. The tact remains that ever since 1989 in which year the writ petition had been filed by the appellant, it is being supplied power for running-a re-rolling mill pursuant to the direction of this Court. The writ petition is still pending. In that writ petition is still pending. In that writ petition it has to be decided whether the utilisation of power by the appellant for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was applied for was a malpractice and if so, whether the Electricity Board was emitted to take appropriate action against it. But pending disposal of that writ petition, we are of the view that there may not he any justification in rejecting the request of the appellant for release of additional load of 195 KVA. Therefore, we direct that the State Electricity Board shall release the additional load of 195 KVA to the appellant subject to its complying with all the requirements relating to release of such additional load. But the release of such additional load shall be subject to the result of Writ Petition No. 16038/89. The order under appeal is, therefore, set aside. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

( 11 ) THE Chief Engineering, Electricity, Metropolitan Zone, A. P. S. E. B. Mr. P. M. K. Gandhi, gave his counter affidavit dated 21-1-1997 stating that the petitioner made a requisition on 22-4-1988 for Supply of energy for running a dal mill and that it was issued a feasibility certificate on 14-7-1988 for running a dal mill and that, under those circumstances, a H. T. agreement was entered into by the petitioner with the Board in which it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner requested the Board to supply energy for the purpose of running a dal mill, and that, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the omission of manufacture of Steel rerolling in the agreement was an error and was noticed by it after release of the supply was not correct. He also states that the licence produced by the petitioner on 24-8-1989 related to the manufacture of rerolling of non-ferrous metals with raw material brass and aluminium and that the said licence was not for steel rerolling and production of M. S. rounds. He further states that till 8-10-1991 the petitioner did not have any licence to run steel rerolling industry. Thus, when the energy was released to the petitioners unit on 5-8-1989, sanction by the Board was only for release of energy to the petitioner for running a dal mill and not for running any rerolling-mill, whether non ferrous or ferrous. It is also-slated that as on the date of inspection. e. on 26-8-1989 when it was noticed that the petitioner was running a steel rerolling mill, the petitioner did not have any licence for running a steel rerolling mill. He submits that, therefore, the petitioner wantonly misled the Board and fraudulently obtained supply of energy for running a steel rerolling mill. He contends that, under those circumstances, the respondents were right in disconnecting the supply of energy to the petitioners unit after issuing notice, dated 10-11-1989 under Condition No. 3. 5. 1 of the Conditions. That Condition was introduced under B. P. Ms. No. 1079, dated 3-10-1989 and reads as follows :--"3. 5. 1. All the H. T. services shall be inspected by the officers of Board annually or at any lime they desire to do so to verify whether the H. T. consumers are availing supply of electricity with a proper license or permission as may be required under any statute. If on such inspection, it is. found that the consumer is availing supply without such license or permission, supply of electricity shall be disconnected after giving notice to the consumer. "he also filed counter affidavit, dated 27-2-1997 stating that ban on certain categories of industries was in force from 13-9-1988 to 18-47-1991 under Boards Memo No. CET 142/f4/ 283/83, dated 13-9-1988 and that the said ban covered metallurgical and rerolling industries among others. Therein, he further states that the petitioner knowing full well that there was ban on release of rerolling mills with effect from 13-9-1988 fraudulently tried to develop a case that he had applied for release of power to a rerolling mill. He states that the petitioner could not have obtained sanction from the Board for release of energy on 5-8-1989 to a rerolling milt. He further states as follows:-- "it is submitted that a close scrutiny of the equipment approved by the Chief Electrical Inspector to the Government indicates that no equipment for melting of the raw material to make re-rolling works, such as high-temperature furnace, induced draught fans etc. , were not shown in the approved list. As such, it is clear that the petitioner had never indicated to the Board about the possibility of utilising the power for running a rerolling mill. The petitioner after release of power for the dal mill came up with a representation that the purpose of supply was wrongly noted in agreement as dal mill which cannot be taken into cognizance. The petitioner clearly tried to mis-lead the Board in this regard. I submit that the petitioner specifically never made any application for release of power for rerolling mill except showing the circumstantial evidence of material, which is nothing hut an intention for applying for power for rerolling mill,"

( 12 ) THE 3rd respondent filed an affidavit dated 30-1-1997. In addition to the facts alreay stated on behalf of the respondents, he states that when the premises of the petitioner were inspected by the then Assistant Divisional Engineer (Distribution), Hyderabad on 26-8-1989 for taking periodical H. T. reading, it was observed that the premises were under utilisation for running rerolling of steel"which violated the restrictions and control orders issued by the Board under B. P. Ms. No. 349 and 834. Commercial, dated 13-4-1989 and 25-7-1989 respectively"and that the same was intimated to the consumer by letter dated 19-8-1989. He further states that the petitioner had taken supply for running a dal mill which fell under Category c at the relevant time, whereas it was utilising the supply for running a rerolling mill which came under Category g and that the quotas for energy and maximum demand were fixed by the Board for the petitioner under Category c and was intimated to the petitioner and that the petitioner did not question the same, and that, therefore, it was confirmed that the petitioner was aware that the supply was released for running a dal mill and not for a steel rerolling mill. He further submits that the petitioner clearly violated Clauses 39. 1. 5 of the Conditions by using electricity for a purpose other than for which supply was given by the Hoard. He also asserts that the petitioner was provisionally assessed only for the period from 26-8-1989 to 4-11-1989. e. the date of inspection.

( 13 ) MR. P. Dhondiraj, who was the then Assistant Divisional Engineer, Mogalpura Sub-Division. Hyderabad of the Board, gve his counter affidavit dated 13-2-1997. He states that the petitioner entered into an agreement in December. 1988 itself for supply of energy to a dal mill and that subsequently it changed its mind in April, 1989 and obtained provisional S. S. I, registration only for rerolling of non-ferrous metals and that this was never indicated to the respondents. He also states that the S. S. I, registration obtained by the petitioner for rerolling of non-ferrous metals in April. 1989 was submitted by the petitioner in the divisions office only on 38-8-1989 after lapse of four months and after the release of power supply.

( 14 ) FROM the above narration, the uncontrovertible facts that can be culled out are that the petitioner applied to the Board for supply of electrical energy to a dal mill proposed to be set up by it and that the Board sanctioned release of energy only to a dal mill to be set up by the petitioner. The petitioner did not approach the Board at any time for supply of energy to a rerolling mill for producing non-ferrous items or M. S. steel items. The petitioner in fact set up an M. S. steel rerolling mill and got the energy released to it on 5-8-1989 without the authority of the Board and without disclosing to the Board that it in fact set up an M. S. steel rerolling mill and not a dal mill. At the time when the electrical energy was so released to the petitioners M. S. steel rerolling unit, there was a bar imposed by the Board for releasing energy to such units under Memo, dated 13-9-1988. which was in force uplo 18-4-1991. Till 8-10-1991 the petitioner did not have any licence to run steel rerolling unit. It had only a licence for rerolling of non-ferrous metals with the raw-material of brass and aluminium. Thus the petitioner managed to get the release of electrical energy on 5-8-1989 to the M. S. steel rerolling unit set up by it unauthorisedly, may be with the connivance of the concerned officials of the Board : this last aspect is for the Board to enquire into. We arc constrained to observe that we find it difficult to assume and proceed on the basis that the concerned officials of the Board were so naive and gullible as not to know whether they were releasing energy to a dal mill or to a steel rerolling mill --more so, if they checked the machinery installed by the petitioner, as was expected of them, before the release of energy to the unit set up by the petitioner. The electrical energy to the petitioners unit was released on 5-8-1989 and the inspection by the 3rd respondent was on 26-8-1989 when it was discovered that the petitioner was in fact running a steel rerolling mill. It may not be impossible, but it is most improbable that the petitioner got converted o dal mill into a steel revolting milt within 20 days -- the gap between 5-8-1989 and 26-8-1989. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents that the machinery installed by the petitioner prior to the release of energy as certified by the Chief Electrical Inspector varied with the machinery found on 26-8-1989. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume and proceed on the basis that the petitioner in fact installed all the machinery necessary for a steel rerolling mill even by the date the electrical energy was released to its unit on 5-8-1989 and that in fact the authorities of the Board concerned released energy to a steel rerolling mill set up by the petitioner contrary to the sanction given by the Board. e. for release of energy for a dal mill, and in violation of the bar imposed by the Boards Memo, dated 13-9-1988. We are therefore, constrained to conclude that the petitioner was not lair and clean in its dealings with the Board.

( 15 ) NOR was it to this Court. In the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition filed by its partner it was suppressed that the petitioner sought supply of electrical energy to a dal mill only and that at no time it applied for supply of energy to a rerolling mill, whether of non-ferrous metals or ferrous metal. It was only stated that"the petitioner sought for supply of High Tension power with a contracted maximum demand of 300 KVA at 11 KV for establishing an industrial unit under S. S.. sector" without disclosing the product sought to be produced by the unit. As if a genuine, honest and only an innocuous mistake occurred, it is stated that it was noticed that there was "an error in the agreement about the line of manufacture" and that the petitioner addressed letter to the 2nd respondent on 24-8-1989"informing that the power supply is needed for dal mill and rerolling mill, duly enclosing the S. S. I, registration certificate grunted to the petitioner for the manufacture of rerolling products". Here also there was suppression of the fact that the S. S. I, registration certificate granted by that date was only in respect of non-ferrous rerolling products from brass and aluminium taw material and that by that date, the petitioners unit was in fact rerolling M. S. steel products for which there was no registration certificate at that time or even by the date when the present Writ Petition was presented. e. on 13-11-1989 the licence to run steel rerolling unit was obtained only on 8-10-1991 after the petitioner ceased to be a partnership firm and became a proprietary concern of Mr. D. K. Kedia. These suppressions have to be viewed in the context of the Board imposing a ban on release of electrical energy to new rerolling units, which was in force from 13-9-1988 to 18-4-1991. e. even on the date when the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. We are inclined to view the suppressions as intentionally made with a design to mislead this Court. On 5-2-1997 we directed the petitioner as follows:--"the petitioner has not come forward clear with full facts. It is incumbent on the petitioner to place all the facts be fore this Court, it it wants this Court to exercise the equitable jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution by way of issuing writs. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a partnership firm, in which ease the Tact whether it is a firm registered under the Partnership Act or not also has to be stated. The Managing Partner will have to file the affidavit staling all the facts and shall place all the material on which reliance is sought to be placed for me purpose of this Writ Petition before this Court. . . . . "only thereafter. Mr. D. K. Kedia filed an additional affidavit dated 12-2-1997 stating that at the relevant time the petitioner Arm was unregistered under the Partnership Act and that it was disssolved in the year 1990 and that he took it over as a proprietary concern and that he was its sole proprietor. Subsequently. Mr. Kedia tiled another additional affidavit dated 11-3-1997 admitting that no separate application was made on behalf of the petitioner for supply of power to a rerolling mill.

( 16 ) WE, therefore, find that the petitioner had obtained unmerited orders from this Court for restoring supply of electrical energy to a rerolling unit for which the Board never agreed to supply electrical energy : firstly, because no application was ever made by the petitioner to the Board for supply of energy to a rerolling unit; secondly, because there was no mistake in the agreement entered into with the Board on 7-12-1988 in mentioned that supply of energy was for the purpose of dal mill to be set up in the premises situated at 19-5-16/5. Bahadurpura in Hyderabad City. This Court exercises equitable jurisdiction while issuing Writs of Mandamus. Certiorari etc. . under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In A. M. Allison v. B. L. Sen. AIR 1957 SC 227, the Supreme Court held that the proceedings by way of Certiorari were not of course and that the High Court had the power to refuse the Writs, if it was satisfied that there was no failure of justice. In State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481 [LQ/SC/1993/963] , this principle was advanced further by pointing out that the distinction between Writs issued as a matter of right such as Habeas Corpus nd those issued in exercise of discretion such as Certiorari and Mandamus was well known and the Supreme Court observed us follows" :--"the High Courts exercise control over Government functioning and ensure obedience of rules and law by enforcing proper, fair and just performance of duty. Where the Government or any authority passes an order which is contrary to rules or taw it becomes amenable to correction by the Courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction. But one of the principles inherent in it is that the exercise of power should be for the sake of justice. One of the yardstick for it is if the quashing of the order results in greater harm to the society then the Court may restrain from exercising the power. "in Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 1037 [LQ/SC/1979/446] , the Supreme Court held as follows at page 1039 :--"article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the Court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order such as public interest dictates and equity projects. courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go where only private interests arc involved. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations as of public interest. . . . . (27 Am. Jur. 2/d Equity p. 626) ". It is settled law that when a person approaches this Court by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts, the Court in its discretion may not grant reliefs even though a case may be made out. In Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 : (AIR 1993 SC 852 [LQ/SC/1992/803] ) the Supreme Court has held that"it is well settled that a person invoking an equitable extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to come with clean hands and should not conceal the material facts. "this principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in A. P. State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Gar Rerolling Mills, AIR 1994 SC 2151 : (1994 AIR SCW 1953 [LQ/SC/1994/200 ;] ">(1994 AIR SCW 1953 [LQ/SC/1994/200 ;] [LQ/SC/1994/200 ;] ) in the following manner at page 2161 (of AIR):"a Court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution must so act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith, as far as it lies within their power. Equity is always known to defend the law from clefty evasions and new subtelities invented to evade law. "reference may also be made de to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Slate of U. P. v. Ramashyraya Yadav. (1996) 3 SCC 332 [LQ/SC/1996/404] : (AIR 1996 SC 1188 [LQ/SC/1996/404] ): Agricultual and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane, (1996) 4 SCC 297 [LQ/SC/1996/897] : (AIR 1996 SC 1947 [LQ/SC/1996/897] ); Ram Krishna Verma v. State of. P. . AIR 1992 SC 1888 [LQ/SC/1992/294] : (1992 AIR SCW 2141); S. B. Mathur v. Matti Ullah, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 650 and Bhagwan Das Sood v. State of H. P. , (1997) 1 SCC 227 [LQ/SC/1996/1778] : (AIR 1997 SC 1549 [LQ/SC/1996/1778] ).

( 17 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner points out that no loss was suffered by the Board because during the relevent period there was no difference between the tariffs for energy supplied to dal mills on the one hand and the tariffs for energy supplied to rerolling mills on the other. But it cannot be disputed that the petitioner could not have had any sanction from the Board fur release of energy to a new rerolling mill during the period it imposed a ban under Memo No. CET 142/f4/283/83. e. from 13-9-1988 to 18-4-1991. In Avadhesh Alloys Limited v. A. P. S. E. B. , 1991 (1) ALT 551 [LQ/APHC/1991/18] , a Division Bench of this Court has held that the Board is empowered to frame a list of negative industries which cannot be released any additional or new load of supply of electrical energy on the basis of their employment potential or social return and their importance in an emerging industrial society. In that view of the matter, the bench upheld the refusal of the Board to release energy to certain categories of industries including rerolling industry.

( 18 ) THUS, if the petitioner approached the Board for selling up a rerolling mill, it would not have obtained clearance from the Board during the period the ban was in force. In the circumstances and on the facts of the present case, the Board was justified in disconnecting the supply of energy to the petitioner on finding that the petitioner was in fact running a steel rerolling mill with the energy released for running a dal mill and that the petitioner was not having an S. S. I, certificate for setting up a steel rerolling mill at that time. Supply of energy to existing steel rerolling mills was also subject to more severe cuts because of shortages of energy during the relevant period. The petitioner was enjoying less severe cuts on the basis that the energy was released to a dal mill as per the sanction by the Board, Had all the facts been placed before this Court, this Court would not have directed reconnection during the period the ban under memo, dated 13-9-1988 was in force.

( 19 ) HOWEVER, we find that the petitioner has been running the unit after release of the energy pursuant to the interim direction of this Court which included the period during which the ban was in force. Under the circumstances, we propose to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 for the unmeritted advantage received during the ban period by virtue of the interim directions of this Court for restoring supply of energy of the steel rerolling mill. After taking time for instructions in that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner reported that the petitioner agreed to make the payment by way of a Bankers Cheque and handed over the Bankers Cheque BC/f. No. 0913353. dated 10-3-1997 drawn on Mahaboobgunj Branch of State Bank of Hyderabad in favour of the Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, A. P. S. B. B. , City. Hyderabad for Rs. 1,00,000. 00. The said bankers Cheque has been handed over today to the learned Standing Counsel for the Board Mr.. Siddaiah. The learned Standing Counsel has stated that the respondents agreed to drop all further proceedings without requiring the petitioner to pay any further amount under the impugned demand made in Letter No. ADR/dxi/z. III/f. HT/d. No. 1128/ 89, dated 7-11 -1989 of the 3rd respondent.

( 20 ) WE make it clear that it is now open to the petitioner to make, within six weeks from today, an application to the appropriate authority or the Board for fresh agreement for supply of energy for running the steel rerolling mill. If such an application is made, the concerned authority shall consider the same in accordance with law keeping in view the fact that the unit is already receiving energy, albeit unauthorisedly. It is open to that authority to require the petitioner to pay any additional amounts as per the Conditions. If no such application is made within the time allowed, it will be open to the authorities to disconnect the supply of energy to the petitioners unit without any further notice.

( 21 ) THE Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

( 22 ) ORDER accordingly.