Section 47(4) of the Act says that the distribution licensee shall pay interest equivalent to the bank rate or more, as may be specified by the concerned State Commission, on the security deposits offered by the petitioner for the purpose of service connection. The Act came into force with effect from 10.6.2003. The tariff fixed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission for the year 2004-05 at clause (7) also says that licensee to pay interest on consumer security deposits at the prevailing bank rate as on 1.4.2004 which is currently 6% per annum. Of course, as contended, under Section 47(4) of the Act, the Regulatory Commission framed rules with effect from 23.3.2004, which came into force with effect from 18.8.2004. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to interest @ 3% and not 6%. The interest @ 6% is deemed to have come into existence only from 18.8.2004. Under those circumstances, the excess interest paid from 1.4.2004 to 17.8.2004 was debited in respect of bills for the month of May, 2005. This approach made by the respondents, in my consideration opinion, is atrocious. Section 47(4) came into force with effect from 23.3.2004, which contemplate interest at the prevailing bank rate and admittedly, in the tariff order passed by the Commission for the year 2004-05, the prevailing bank rate was @ 6% per annum. May be, the regulations of the Commission were published and came into force on 18.8.2004, but the said regulations never said that they have any retrospective effect. Further, the rules made by any authority under the Act cannot be inconsistent with the language imported in Electricity Act, 2003. Under those circumstances, the debit of Rs.28,826/- in respect of two units of the petitioner company construing that petitioner is entitled to interest only @ 3% from 4.4.2004 to 17.8.2004 is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be declared as such.
