THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.922 of 2011 Date:23.02.2011 Between: Sri Lakshmi Rice Mill ..... Petitioner AND Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Visakhapatnam and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mangena Sri Rama Rao 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 declare the inaction of the respondents in regularising the petitioner’s additional load in respect of service connection bearing No.289/category III of Palakoderu Village as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a rice mill, which was inspected by AE(T)/DPE/Eluru on 27.07.2007 and it was noticed during the inspection that the petitioner has exceeded the contracted load. Accordingly, through letter dated 18.08.2007, respondent No.2 has called upon the petitioner to pay Rs.48,000/- towards developmental charges in the form of demand draft in favour of Divisional Engineer/Operation/APEPDCL/ Bhimavaram and Rs.16,000/- towards additional consumption deposit in the form of demand draft in favour of Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO/APEPDCL/Bhimavaram. It is further stated that if additional service lines are to be laid or existing service lines are to be augmented, the amount of service line charges payable by the petitioner shall be informed separately. The petitioner, in his letter dated 04.10.2007 addressed to respondent No.2, has informed that he has paid Rs.48,000/- vide D.D.No.431634 dated 04.10.2007 and Rs.16,000/- vide D.D.No.431635 dated 04.10.2007. The petitioner also stated in his letter that he was filing copies of the said D.Ds. in proof of payment. The petitioner has accordingly requested respondent No.2 in the said letter to regularise the additional load of 32 HP. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far respondent No.2 has not regularised the additional load. At the hearing Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned standing counsel for APEPDCL representing the respondents, submitted that if the petitioner has paid the amounts as demanded in the letter dated 18.08.2007 of respondent No.2, there can be no objection for regularising the additional load. Inasmuch as the petitioner has filed proof of payment of the amounts demanded under the letter dated 18.08.2007, by filing copies of demand drafts along with his letter dated 04.10.2007, the genuineness of which is not controverted, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and regularise additional load on his being satisfied that the conditions regarding payment of the two sums contained in the letter dated 18.08.2007 were complied with by the petitioner. He shall take appropriate action in this regard within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.1134 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd February, 2011 GHN