S. MURALIDHAR, J. ( 1 ) THE question of law that arises for consideration in these petitions is whether the Respondents in each of them, i. e. the power distribution companies, are justified in clubbing the consumption against two or more separate electricity connections given to each of the Petitioners and thereby levying a higher rate of tariff. Background facts: Kolmet Builders ( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the first petition by Kolmet Builders is that there are three separate electricity connections installed in No. 7b Pusa Road, delhi for non-domestic purposes. The Petitioner is a registered partnership firm of which Dr. Ashwani Mehta is a partner. It is carrying out the business of building construction and also running a nursing home under the name of the kolmet Hospital at 7b Pusa Road, New Delhi. Originally the sanctioned load for the three electricity connections was 8 KW, 18kw and 18 KW respectively. 2. 1 Under the VDS Scheme of 1995, the Petitioner applied to the erstwhile Delhi vidyut Board (DVB) for enhancement of the load from 8kw to 18. 350 KW, 18kw to 36 kw and 18kw to 37kw and for conversion of the category from domestic to commercial. The Petitioner submitted a certificate of registration for the nursing home, the sanctioned building plan and completed various formalities. Thereafter the category of the Petitioner?s connection was changed from domestic to non-domestic light (NDLT ). With effect from 19. 1. 1996 electricity bills were raised on the basis of the NDLT tariff. 2. 2 According to the Petitioner in July 2001, when the erstwhile DVB began raising bills on the basis of the domestic/dm category instead of the NDLT category, the Petitioner raised a dispute before the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) which is stated to be pending. 2. 3 With the view to installing an additional load in the nursing home, the Petitioner applied to the Respondents for grant of mixed load high tension (MLHT) connection of 150 KW on 3. 3. 2002 and deposited the requisite processing fees. It is stated that that said application is pending with the Respondent. 2. 4 An inspection was carried out in the premises of the Petitioner on 20. 1. 2003 by the enforcement team of the Respondent BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (BRPL) the successor-in-interest of the DVB. 3. 2002 and deposited the requisite processing fees. It is stated that that said application is pending with the Respondent. 2. 4 An inspection was carried out in the premises of the Petitioner on 20. 1. 2003 by the enforcement team of the Respondent BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (BRPL) the successor-in-interest of the DVB. In respect of the three electricity connections, the connected load found against the sanctioned load was as under: K. No. S. LOAD CONNECTED LOAD 160307 18. 35 KW ? 30. 640 KW 160220 37. 00 KW ? 73. 043 KW 160306 36. 00 KW ? 71. 323 KW TOTAL 91. 35 KW 175. 006 KW 2. 5 According to the Petitioner in preparing the inspection report the load of air-conditioners, Autoclaves, X-Ray Machines and Incubators were included. A show cause notice issued to the Petitioner to which it replied on 18. 12. 2003. A personal hearing was given on 5. 1. 2004 A Speaking Order dated 16. 1. 2004 was issued by the Respondent in which it was held that the status of separate distinct premises for the three separate connections sanctioned, had been ? altered unauthorisedly into unified premises where all the three connections are being used for the total load of 175. 006 KW for running the hospital?. It was accordingly concluded that the unauthorized unification of the premises had changed the category of connection from NDLT to MLHT (LT) which was a violation of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) Regulations, the Tariff Schedule and the Electricity Act, 2003 (EA ). Accordingly it was proposed to raise a bill on the Petitioner on the basis of the rates applicable to the MLHT (LT) category under the Tariff Schedule for the year 2003-04. 2. 6 Thereafter the Petitioner filed the present petition, challenging the speaking Order dated 16. 1. 2004 On 9. 2. 2004 while directing notice to issue in the writ petition, this Court directed that the Respondent would not recover from the Petitioner the arrears of the amount of MLHT for a period of six months prior to the inspection but that the Petitioner would continue to pay post the date of inspection the said amount without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. This interim order was made absolute on 5. 5. 2004 2. This interim order was made absolute on 5. 5. 2004 2. 7 In its reply, the Respondent BRPL raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that it involved disputed questions of fact. It was further stated that apart from the connected load of 175 KW found in the premises as indicated in the Speaking Order, the load of the x-Ray Machines to the extent of 40. 80 KW had not been included. The total connected load, after subtracting the seasonal load of ACs was as under: ?a) Load as per Speaking Order 175. 00 KW b) Additional load of X-Ray Machine 40. 80 KW was not included in the Speaking Order c) Total (a+b) 215. 80 KW d) Less seasonal load of ACs 103. 82 KW d) Total connected load 111. 98 KW? 2. 8 In its rejoinder, the Petitioner referred to Section 43 of the EA and submitted that more than one connection can be installed in the same premises in the name of the consumer or occupier. The rejoinder also referred to the inspection report which separately showed the connected load in respect of each of the electricity connections. According to the petitioner the load of the ACs was wrongly included in all three connections. The total load of X-Ray Machine of 50 ma X 96 KVA (2. 55 KW) also required to be excluded. Therefore, the total load of 106. 37 had to be excluded from the connected load of 176. 805 and this would result in a total connected load of 74. 35. It was reiterated that the actual load in respect of the X-Ray Machines worked out only to 4. 080 KW, i. e. , 4. 8 KVA = the power factor which is 0. 85. Even if the total load of X-Ray machine was to be added, the connected load would be 175 + 4. 080 = 179. 08 KW. If the seasonal load of the ACs i. e. ,103. 82 KW was subtracted the total connected load would be 75. 26 KW and after giving 5 % rebate it was come to 71. 50 KW. In the circumstances, it was contended that there was no occasion therefore to levy the MHLT on the basis that the connected load was more than 100 KW. 2. 82 KW was subtracted the total connected load would be 75. 26 KW and after giving 5 % rebate it was come to 71. 50 KW. In the circumstances, it was contended that there was no occasion therefore to levy the MHLT on the basis that the connected load was more than 100 KW. 2. 9 During the pendency of the writ petition, the Petitioner filed CM no. 13077 of 2005 stating that the Respondents had received a bill in the sum of rs. 4,34,629 with the due date of 27. 9. 2005 on the basis of the billing load of 175 KW. It is, however, pointed out in this application that as per the tariff for the year 2004-05, the conversion of the tariff from NDLT to MLHT was permissible in case the maximum demand indicator (MDI) of one connection exceeded 100 KW. It was contended that since the MDI of the Petitioner had never exceeded 100 KW, it was not liable to pay the MLHT charges. ( 3 ) BACKGROUND facts: Raveen Jain 3. 1 As regards Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 13889 and 13890 of 2004, the facts are more or less similar. Two separate electricity connections were granted by the DVB for industrial purposes in respect of premises bearing No. 297 and 298, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-92 in the names of Shri Raveen jain, Petitioner No. 1 and Shri Suneer Jain, Petitioner No. 2 respectively. Both petitioners are separately assessed to income tax. Separate bills for each connection were being raised by the respondent BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (BYPL), the successor-in-interest of the DVB. 3. 2 An inspection of the premises is stated to have been carried out on 30. 4. 2004 by the officials of the Respondent BYPL. Although according to the petitioners the Respondent did not find anything amiss, the Respondent claims that during the course of the inspection it found that a load of 145. 145 KW was connected and being used for industrial purposes as against the sanctioned load of 63. 41 KW plus 64. 5 KW for industrial purposes. A Speaking Order was passed after giving a personal hearing and a bill in the sum of Rs. 2,40,196 was raised by levying the light industrial power (LIP) tariff. 3. 145 KW was connected and being used for industrial purposes as against the sanctioned load of 63. 41 KW plus 64. 5 KW for industrial purposes. A Speaking Order was passed after giving a personal hearing and a bill in the sum of Rs. 2,40,196 was raised by levying the light industrial power (LIP) tariff. 3. 3 The Petitioners have in these petitions assailed the Speaking Order on the ground that the small industrial power (SIP) tariff can be converted into an LIP tariff only if the connected load against any one connection is found to be in excess of 100 KW. Since that was not the case, there was no occasion to club the two connections which was in two different properties. They also point out that even the MDI in respect of the two connections showed a reading of 79 and 50 respectively. In terms of Clause 8. 2. 1. 1 of the Tariff for year 2004-05 effective by 19. 6. 2004 if the MDI was found to be more than 100kw the bulk tariff (MLHT/lip) under the relevant category on LT (400v) ?would be charged for six months after the load is brought within the SIP/ndlt limit. ? they also pointed out that the Order on the Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR)issued by the DERC permits clubbing of connections for classification under SIP or LIP only where connection for one portion is found used for another portion or in an unified premises. According to the petitioners, there was no such inter-mixing of load in the premises. 3. 4 The case of the Respondents on the other hand is that the two premises were being used in a unified establishment under the name of `jayanita' and they were having common facility of telephone connection, common reception, common basement, common entrance and intermixing of load was detected. It is claimed that the documents now enclosed with the writ petition were not produced before the Officer who gave a personal hearing before making the Speaking Order and therefore the conclusions reached in the Speaking Order were justified. 3. 5 In the rejoinder it is pointed out that there is no intermixing at all of the load. In fact, there was no requirement of such of a load in each of the premises. Background facts: South Point Hospital ( 4 ) 4. 3. 5 In the rejoinder it is pointed out that there is no intermixing at all of the load. In fact, there was no requirement of such of a load in each of the premises. Background facts: South Point Hospital ( 4 ) 4. 1 As regards the third petition [writ Petition (Civil) No. 15265 of 2004] there were two separate electricity connections in two premises. The first was G-48, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi occupied by the South Point hospital, the registered consumer, with the sanctioned load of 45 KW. This was a commercial connection bearing K. No. 2510-N486-0224. The second connection was installed in G-49, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi in the name of Dr. Raj Kumari Kashyap with the sanctioned load of 11 KW. This again was a commercial connection bearing K. No. 2510-N486-0121. A lease agreement was executed on 28. 9. 2002 whereby Dr. Raj Kumari Kashyap agreed to let out the ground floor property at G-49, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-II to the Petitioner for a period of ten years. 4. 2 An inspection was carried out on 26. 12. 2003 by the Respondents BRPL in both the premises and two separate inspection reports were prepared. It was stated in the inspection reports that in respect of the premises at G-48, Masjid moth the total connected load was 108. 068kw and in respect of premises at G-49, masjid Moth the total connected load was 62. 252 KW. 4. 3 The Petitioner had replied to the show cause notice dated 26. 12. 2003 pointing out that the load in respect of Dr. Raj Kumar Kashyap had already been enhanced and for which requisite deposit had been made on 29. 7. 2003. Even in the case of the Petitioner the sanctioned had been enhanced to 45 KW with effect from 27. 1. 1999 itself. 4. 4 A personal hearing was given on 20. 2. 2004 and the seasonal load of 58. 05 was deleted. A bill in the sum of Rs. 3,21,563 for a total load of 112. 27 kw on the basis of the MLHT (LT) category was raised. It was held that both connections were being used by the Petitioner in a unified premises with the total connected load of 170. 330 KW and therefore the assessment was made on that basis. A bill in the sum of Rs. 3,21,563 for a total load of 112. 27 kw on the basis of the MLHT (LT) category was raised. It was held that both connections were being used by the Petitioner in a unified premises with the total connected load of 170. 330 KW and therefore the assessment was made on that basis. It is the case of the Petitioner that if the seasonal load is deleted from the connected load and if there is no clubbing of the two connections then it would come under the category of NDLT (non-domestic low tension) and not mlht. Submissions of counsel ( 5 ) APPEARING for the Petitioners, Mr. Laliet Kumar and Mr. Mukul dhawan, learned Advocates submitted as under: (a) There is no provision in the EA or the Tariff Schedule or the DERC regulations to convert the LT connection to a MLHT connection. Even factually the inspection reports do not show that the petitioners in each case has inter-mixed the connected load. On the other hand, separate connected loads for each electricity connection has been indicated in the concerned inspection reports. (b) Clause 2. 36. 35. 4 of the DERC Order on the ARR has no statutory basis. Even if it were held to be applicable, the clause states that the separate connections should not be clubbed for classification under small industrial power (SIP) or LIP unless it can be proved that ?the connections for one portion is used to supply other portion (s) or the connections are used in a unified premises. ? It is submitted that the term `unified premises' has not been defined and has to be understood in the context of the Act and the tariff. If so understood the essential condition for the applicability of the clause is not met in any of the cases. (c) The word `establishment' used in the context of the MLHT and NDLT connections in the Schedule to the Tariff for the year 2003-04 has not been used in the main body of the tariff. The tariff itself only speaks of `premises'. Therefore, the word `establishment' should be read as ?premises? and if so read the clubbing of the separate connections in the premises was not permissible. The tariff itself only speaks of `premises'. Therefore, the word `establishment' should be read as ?premises? and if so read the clubbing of the separate connections in the premises was not permissible. (d) As regards Kolmet Builders and South Point Hospital it is submitted that the total connected load has wrongly included the seasonal load of ACs and the load pertaining to the X-Ray machines. If those two items are excluded, the connected load would be well below 100 KW. As regards raven Jain it is submitted that no factual foundation has been laid to show inter-mixing of the load. ( 6 ) APPEARING for the Respondents, Mr. Jayant Nath, the learned Senior counsel refers to the very same clause in the Order on the ARR basis by the DERC and submits that this order passed in exercise of powers under Section 64 EA is of a statutory character and is therefore binding on the consumers. The tariff order acquires a further statutory character in terms of Sections 62 and 64 of the EA. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in namala Subba Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2007 SC 9 to contend that the statutory terms are applicable on the consumers. He states that it is permissible under the terms of the ARR to treat the unified premises as an establishment and levy the higher rate of tariff where it is found that the total connected load is more than 100 KW. He therefore justifies the levy of the higher rate of tariff by treating the connection as a MLHT connection. The Statutory Basis for clubbing of separate connections ( 7 ) ALTHOUGH the point regarding maintainability of the writ petitions was raised in the replies filed by the respondents, this was not seriously urged during arguments. Therefore the only question that arises in these petitions is whether there is a legal basis for the Respondents to club the consumption against separate electricity connections for arriving at the total connected load and raise a bill on that basis. ( 8 ) 8. 1 There is no dispute that there can be more than one electricity connection for a premises. Section 2 (51) of the EA defines ?premises? to include any land, building or structure. However, it does not envisage the concept of a ?unified premises?. ( 8 ) 8. 1 There is no dispute that there can be more than one electricity connection for a premises. Section 2 (51) of the EA defines ?premises? to include any land, building or structure. However, it does not envisage the concept of a ?unified premises?. Section 43 of EA mandates that an electricity distribution licensee, shall, on an application made by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application. 8. 2 The tariffs for the year 2001-02 and 2003-04 define ?premises? and ?non-domestic premises? as under: ?premises: Shall mean land or building or part thereof in respect of which separate meter or metering arrangements have been made by the Board/licensee for supply of electricity. Non-Domestic Premises : Shall mean all premises other than domestic, industrial or agricultural premises unless otherwise stated. ? 8. 3 The expression `connected load' is defined as under: ?connected Load: Shall mean the sum of the rated capacities of all energy consuming apparatus duly wired and connected to the power supply system including portable apparatus in the consumer's premises. Further, connected load shall be calculated after allowing a tolerance of 5%. ? 8. 4 The term `connected load' in turn refers to ?premises? which, as has already been noticed above, can include land, building or a part thereof in respect of which separate meter has been installed for supply of electricity. 8. 5 As regards the expression `power system', Section 2 (50) of the EA defines it as under: ?2 (50) ?power system? means all aspects of generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity and includes one or more of the following namely: (a) generating stations; (b) transmission or main transmission lines; (c) sub-stations; (d) tie-lines; (e) load dispatch activities; (f) mains or distribution mains; (g) electric supply-lines; (h) overhead lines; (i) service lines; (j) works? 8. 6 The expression `service line' occurring in Section 2 (50) is further defined in Section 2 (61) of EA as under: ?service-line? means any electric supply-line through which electricity is, or is intended to be, supplied - (a) to a single consumer either from a distributing main or immediately from the distribution Licensee's premises; or (b) from a distributing main to a group of consumers on the same premises or on contiguous premises supplied from the same point of the distributing main;? 8. 8. 7 Clause 8. 2. 1. 1 of the Tariff for the relevant year indicates the manner of dealing with the change of category from non-domestic low tension/small industrial power (NDLT/sip) to MLHT/lip. The said clause reads as under: ?8. 2. 1. 1 Levy/withdrawal of bulk supply tariff the cases of change of category from NDLT/sip (Non-domestic Low Tension/small industrial Power) to MLHT/lip (Mixed Load High Tension/large Industrial Power)due to unauthorized load shall be dealt as under:-i)In case the connected load including lighting fan and power load of the otherwise LT connection is found to be more than 100 KW, the bulk tariff (MLHT/lip) under relevant category on LT (400 V) shall be charged till the load is brought within SIP/ NDLT limit and so verified by the licensee on payment of necessary charges by the consumer. In such cases, the billing demand will be treated as sanctioned load or maximum demand, whichever is higher. ii) The above tariff will be levied for six months prior to date of detection retrospectively, unless conclusive evidence, to the satisfaction of the licensee, is produced by the consumer to substantiate that excess load beyond 100 KW was connected afterwards. iii) If during any subsequent inspection, within a year of previous inspection for verification of load and withdrawal of bulk tariff, the connected load is again found to be more than 100 KW, the bulk supply category of tariff shall be imposed again from the date of previous withdrawal. ? ( 9 ) IT is clear from the schedules attached to the tariff that the concept of establishment is to be found only in the schedule and not in the main body of the tariff. The schedule indicates the different categories of power connections, and the categories of consumers to whom they are available. The ndlt-I connection for instance is available ?to all consumers having load (other than the industrial load) up to 100 KW for lighting, fan and heating/cooling power appliances in all non-domestic establishments?. The categories of such establishments include ?hospitals, nursing homes/diagnostic centres?. Likewise, the mixed load high tension (MLHT) supply is available on 11 KV line or on LT (400 Volts line) ?to all consumers having load above 100 KW for lighting, fan, heating/cooling etc. , in domestic/non-domestic establishments?. ( 10 ) IT is the case of the Respondents that the word `establishment? Likewise, the mixed load high tension (MLHT) supply is available on 11 KV line or on LT (400 Volts line) ?to all consumers having load above 100 KW for lighting, fan, heating/cooling etc. , in domestic/non-domestic establishments?. ( 10 ) IT is the case of the Respondents that the word `establishment? in the schedule to the tariff for the year 2003-04 which is applicable in the instant case requires the treatment of the entire premises which may have more than one electricity connection as an establishment. The Respondents further rely upon clause 2. 36. 35. 4 of the DERC Order on ARR for the period of nine months from july 2002 to March 2003 and Financial Year 2003-04 to justify the clubbing of the separate connections. The said clause reads as under: ?2. 36. 35. 4 Clubbing of more than one connection for classification under SIP or lip the Commission is of the opinion that if separate connections have been taken in distinct portions of a building under different names, then the load should not be clubbed together for classification under SIP or LIP, unless it can be proved that the connections for one portion is used to supply other portion (s) or the connections are used in a unified premises. ( 11 ) GIVEN the fact that it is possible to have separate electricity connections for a premises and that a premises can be even a part of a building, it is permissible to have separate electricity connections in the same building and in respect of the same consumer. The connected load in respect of each of the connections can easily be determined. The clubbing of separate electricity connections, even according to the DERC Order and ARR is permissible only when it is ?proved that the connections for one portion is used to supply other portions or the connections are used in a unified premises?. ( 12 ) THE EA defines only ?premises? and not ?establishment?. The word `establishment' has also not been defined in the tariff. The expression ?unified premises? has not been defined anywhere at all. In the context of the tariffs and the EA, the word `premises' prima facie indicates separateness. It would therefore be a question of fact whether in fact the premises is unified or not. ( 13 ) THE introduction of the concept of a ?unified premises? The expression ?unified premises? has not been defined anywhere at all. In the context of the tariffs and the EA, the word `premises' prima facie indicates separateness. It would therefore be a question of fact whether in fact the premises is unified or not. ( 13 ) THE introduction of the concept of a ?unified premises? for the first time in a clause in an order by the DERC on the ARR of a power distribution company, which although issued in terms of the EA is valid only for a limited period cannot obviously override the statute. Since the result of the clubbing of electricity connections can result in the applicability of a higher tariff, which is obviously prejudicial to the consumer, the power to permit such clubbing must be found in the EA itself or at least in the main body of the tariff issued in terms thereof. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. M/s. Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 2 does not really deal with the issues of clubbing of two electricity connections. It lays down the proposition that any statutory provision concerning supply of electricity would be binding on the consumer. While that proposition can hardly be disputed, it does not help to determine whether there should be a statutory basis to permit the respondents to club the consumption against separate electricity connections of the same consumer for the purposes of levying a higher tariff. ( 14 ) CLAUSE 8. 2. 1. 1 of the Tariff 2003-04 requires that the connected load in respect of each connection should be found to be more than 100 KW. It also does not envisage clubbing of two separate connections in a unified premises. The word `establishment' having not been defined, the Petitioners are justified in contending that in the context of supply of electricity in terms of the applicable tariff, the word `establishment' has to be understood as premises. ( 15 ) THE resultant position is that if the Respondents want to charge a higher tariff then in terms of Clause 8. 2. 1. 1 of the relevant tariff for the year 2003-04 it will have to establish factually that the connected load in respect of each separate connection is more than 100 KW. There is no other statutory basis on which the respondents can do this. 2. 1. 1 of the relevant tariff for the year 2003-04 it will have to establish factually that the connected load in respect of each separate connection is more than 100 KW. There is no other statutory basis on which the respondents can do this. They cannot possibly rely upon Clause 2. 36. 35. 4 in the ARR Order to justify the levy of a higher tariff after clubbing of the consumption against separate connections in a premises of the same consumer. There is much force in the contention of the petitioners that in any event the essential conditions for the applicability of the said Clause has not been shown to exist factually in any of these cases. Kolmet Builders ( 16 ) TURNING to the facts of individual cases, as far as claim bills is concerned, this Court finds that the inspection report itself indicates the separate connected load for each premises. The respondents have further themselves admitted that the inclusion of the seasonal AC load was erroneous. The inclusion of the load on the X-Ray Machine, also appears to be erroneous for the simple reason in the first place that the load been wrongly calculated as 40. 80 KV when in fact as rightly pointed out by the Petitioners, it should be only 4. 08 KV. Even if one were to exclude the load of the AC, the connected load would only be 75. 26 KW which is well within the 100 KW limit. The Court is accordingly of the view that the raising of the higher tariff bill on the basis of the total connected load being in excess of 100 KW was erroneous. ( 17 ) THE impugned bill raised against this petitioner is accordingly quashed, and it is directed that the bill will be raised on the basis of the category for which the load was sanctioned and the applicable load as per the prevalent tariff and any refund, after accounting for the payment already made by the Petitioner pursuant to the Order dated 9. 2. 2004 passed by this Court will be made to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks together with simple interest at 9% per annum. Raveen Jain and Suneer Jain ( 18 ) IT is apparent from the documents placed on record that these are two separate premises being two separate connections. 2. 2004 passed by this Court will be made to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks together with simple interest at 9% per annum. Raveen Jain and Suneer Jain ( 18 ) IT is apparent from the documents placed on record that these are two separate premises being two separate connections. The documents placed on record by the Respondent do not include the load assessment form as per which the total connected load has been calculated as 145. 145 KW. The load assessment form would indicate what was the connected load in respect of each separate connection. As long as the connected load against each separate connection does not exceed 100 KW it is not permissible for the Respondent to club both the connections to allege inter-mixing of the load. Further, the tariff for the relevant period effective from 19. 6. 2004 requires the connected load against each separate connection to be more than 100 KW. That obviously has not been established by the Respondent. In that view of the matter, the impugned bill in respect of these petitioners is hereby quashed. The Respondents are directed to re-work the bill that is the applicable tariff for the load and category that has been sanctioned to the Petitioners and after accounting for the deposit already made by the Petitioners in terms of the Order dated 20. 8. 2004 Any refund owing to the Petitioners after the re-calculation will be refunded with interest at simple interest of 9% per annum within a period of four weeks. South Point Hospital ( 19 ) THE clubbing of the electricity connection here again is not justified. The separate connected load in respect of each of the separate connection would have to be accounted for before raising the bill against the petitioner. The impugned bill is therefore quashed and the direction is issued to re-work the bill based on the applicable tariff and the category after excluding the load towards the X-Ray and seasonal loads towards the air-conditioners. If after accounting the payments already made by the Petitioner, any amount is found refundable, it should be done so within a period of four weeks with simple interest of 9% per annum. ( 20 ) WITH these directions, the writ petitions are allowed with costs of rs. If after accounting the payments already made by the Petitioner, any amount is found refundable, it should be done so within a period of four weeks with simple interest of 9% per annum. ( 20 ) WITH these directions, the writ petitions are allowed with costs of rs. 3,500 each which will be paid by the Respondents to the petitioners in each petition within a period of four weeks from today. The writ petitions and applications are disposed of.