THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8950 of 2011 Date:06.04.2011 Between: Col.D.S.Raju Polytechnic College ..... Petitioner AND The Divisional Engineer (Operation), Bhimavaram and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Chidambaram Counsel for Respondents: Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, standing counsel for APEPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Letter No.ADE/OSD/PKL/Sub.Er/F.Addl.Load Doc.No.196/10-11/D.No.360/11 dated 28.02.2011 of respondent No.2, whereby he has assessed the amount of back billing in respect of service connection No.966, Category-II, Poduru Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned standing counsel for the respondents, and perused the record. The petitioner is a consumer of electricity supplied by the respondents. The petitioner’s service connection is classified under Category-II. The service connection was inspected by Assistant Divisional Engineer/DPE/1/Vizianagaram on 10.02.2011. On the basis of the said inspection, respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings, wherein it is stated that as against the contracted load of 5471 W, the petitioner’s service has recorded connected load of 30058 W. On this premise, an assessment was made for back billing of the excess load said to have been availed by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not issued any prior notice before assessment was made for back billing of the excess load said to have been availed by it. A perusal of the impugned proceedings, which is styled as notice for development charges, does not indicate that any such prior notice was given to the petitioner. In M/s.Ravi Teja Modern Rice Mill v. the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations and another (W.P.Nos.1037, 1045 & 1083 of 2009), this Court dealt with the cases where the licencee has unilaterally concluded that the consumers have exceeded the maximum demand limit and called upon them to regularise the additional load by paying the development charges. While disposing of the said writ petitions, this Court held as under: “Though, literally construed, Condition No.12.3.3 does not envisage a prior opportunity, in my considered opinion, the said condition is required to be read down to the effect that if the respondents come to the conclusion that the consumer has connected additional load, a notice to that effect is to be given, along with all the relevant material to show that the consumer has exceeded the contracted load, and objections be invited. After considering the objections, if any, filed by the consumer, the respondents shall have to determine the issue regarding the factum of connection of additional load. Interpreting this Condition in any other manner would only lead to arbitrariness and unilateral adjudication of the dispute by the licensee. In this view of the matter, as, admittedly, the impugned demands are not preceded by notice and an opportunity of filing objections by the petitioners, they are quashed. The respondents are given liberty to initiate action afresh after following the procedure referred to above.” In view of the principle laid down in the above batch of cases, which squarely applies to the present case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the parties to treat the impugned proceedings as a notice and permit the petitioner to submit objections, within a period of two weeks. On receipt of such objections, if any, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order. Till such order is passed, power supply to the petitioner service connection shall not be disconnected only on account of non-payment of the amount demanded under the impugned proceedings. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.11113 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th April, 2011 GHN