The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.31671 of 2011 Date: 01-12-2011 Between: Hyderabad Chemical Products Limited, Plot No.60 & 61, IDA Pashamylaram, Medak, Rep. by its General Manager, Sri Simhachalam Lukalapu, S/o.late Appalaswamy, aged 62 years ..... Petitioner AND The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., (APIIC), Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Koka Satyanarayana Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Smt.K.V.Rajasree for Mr.B.P.Mohan The Court made the following : Order: The petitioner, which is running an industrial unit in IDA Pashamylaram, Medak, ﬁled this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by letter No.APIIC- IALA.IP/PSM/W.S/2011, dated 12-10-2011, whereby respondent No.3 has demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,625/- towards arrears of water charges. Sri K.K.Satyanarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, invited this Court’s attention to representation, dated 29-09-2011, of the petitioner wherein it has disputed its liability to pay arrears of water charges. The learned Counsel submitted that, without considering the said representation, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned demand. I have heard Sri Koka Satyanarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.K.V.Rajasree, learned Counsel, representing Sri B.P.Mohan, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (for short ‘APIIC’), appearing for the respondents. As the petitioner’s grievance is with respect to non-consideration of its representation, it is appropriate that respondent No.3 reconsiders the issue before enforcing the demand. Accordingly, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 29-09-2011, take appropriate decision thereon and communicate the same to the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by such decision of respondent No.3, it shall be free to avail appropriate remedy. Till communication of such decision to the petitioner, the impugned demand shall not be enforced. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP.No.39299 of 2011, ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 1st December, 2011 LUR