@#@#@#@#@#@#@ HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO:8467 of 2001 DATED: 21-01-2008 Between: Tetali Upender Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Superintendent Engineer, AP Eastern Power Distribution Co., Ltd., Rajahmundry, E.G.District and 4 others. .....RESPONDENTS @#@#@#@#@#@#@ ORDER: This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner praying to declare the proceedings dated 03-11-2000 passed by the third respondent and the consequential demand notice dated 11-04-2001 issued by the fifth respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The impugned proceedings had been issued clubbing three services connections into HT category on the ground that all the services are located within the same premises belonging to one person. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner submitted a detailed representation stating that the services are held by different persons and he had nothing to do with the businesses of the respective persons, therefore, unless and until it is established that all the service connections are held by the same person, they cannot be clubbed. As the demand notice was issued without considering the objections raised by the petitioner, he approached this Court seeking the relief as mentioned above. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an explanation was given by the petitioner to the proceedings dated 03-11-2000 raising various objections for clubbing all the services and converting the same from LT category to HT category, the respondents ought to have passed appropriate orders after taking into consideration all the objections and after hearing the petitioner. Therefore, the demand notice dated 11-04-2001 issued by the fifth respondent is set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner and after giving opportunity to the petitioner for personal hearing, if any, and communicate the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ 21st January, 2008 SKM