IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19422 of 2001 Between: Rama Spinners Pvt. Ltd Rep by managing Director Sri Gopal Agarwal Admn. Office at D.No.2-11-113, Tobacco Bazar , Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Managing Director A.P Central Power Distribution Co.Ltd 3rd Floor , singareni Bhavan , Khairtabad , Hyderabad. 2 The supdt. Engineer (operation Circle), A.P Power Distribution Co.Ltd Sangareddy , Medak District. 3 Asst. Divisional Engineer (Operation Circle) A.P Central Power Distribution Co.Ltd . Toopran , Medak District. 4 Senior Accounts Officer (operationa) A.P Central Power Distribution Company Ltd Sangareddy , Medak District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate . Writ of Mandamus direction declaring the action of the respondents in raising the bills for the consumption months of May, June, & July are against the check report and raising of the bill of August , 2001 as contrary to supply conditions and consequently direct the respondents to raise revised bills for the months of May, June & July after deducting the 50% of the meter reading and for the month of August either by taking the average of the above said 3 months consumption or on the MRI reading of the new meter and the petitioner is ready to pay the balance amount if any immediately on receipt of the revised bill, after adjusting the amounts paid by the petitioner company for the months of May ,June & July and to pass such orders as this Honb'le Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. M.P.CHANDRAMOULI Counsel for the Respondents : Sri O. MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19422 of 2001 O R D E R: The petitioner company initially had LT category power supply. However, the petitioner was provided HT service connection with contracted load of 200 KVA on 4.5.2001 and accordingly a new meter was fixed at the premises of the petitioner on 4.5.2001. The said meter was tested by the Assistant Divisional Engineer/MRT/HT on 13.6.2001 and it was found that the meter was recording 50% more. By that time, the Bill dated 1.6.2001 for the month of May, 2001 was already issued for the period from 4.5.2001 to 24.5.2001 and the Bill amount of Rs.67,500/- was paid by the petitioner. Similarly for the month of June, 2001 (for the period from 24.5.2001 to 24.6.2001), the Bill dated 1.7.2001 was also issued for a sum of Rs.5,93,495/-. However, having regard to the test held on 13.6.2001 in which the meter was found to be recording excess consumption, revised bills for the months of May and June, 2001 were issued for Rs.50,872/- and Rs.4,29,461/- respectively deducting 2/3rd of the original bills for the period during which the meter was defective. The petitioner by letter dated 6.7.2001 raised objections and sought clarifications with regard to the conclusions made. In response to the same, the 2nd respondent by letter dated 10.7.2001 informed the petitioner that the revised bills were correct since the percentage of error recorded was +50. However, the petitioner while reiterating his own calculations, paid only a sum of Rs.3,48,786/- on 12.7.2001. In the circumstances, the 2nd respondent by letter dated 24.7.2001 called upon the petitioner to pay the balance of Rs.80,675/- within two days to avoid disconnection of power supply. The petitioner states that as per the discussions had with the 2nd respondent over phone, he had paid a sum of Rs.64,047/- under protest as against the amount demanded in the letter dated 24.7.2001. Thereafter, for the month of July, 2001 a bill was issued for Rs.6,84,488/- and the same was paid. Subsequently, when the respondents raised a Bill for the consumption month of August, 2001, the petitioner raised an objection stating that the new meter was also defective and requested to issue revised bills taking into consideration the MRI reading. Alleging that the respondents failed to do so, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the Bills issued for the consumption months of May, June and July were not in accordance with the Check Report and the Bill for the month of August, 2001 was contrary to the Terms and Conditions of Supply and for a consequential direction to the respondents to issue revised bills. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is reiterated that the calculations made by the respondents in the revised bills for the months of May and June were in accordance with the Test Report dated 13.6.2001. So far as the subsequent months of July and August, 2001 are concerned, it is contended that since the bills were issued after replacing the defective meter on 13.6.2001, there was no illegality. It was further alleged that whereas the sanctioned M.D. for the petitioner service connection was 200 KVA, it was found that the petitioner had unauthorisedly exceeded the maximum demand for the months of June and July, 2001 continuously and therefore the billing recommended for August, 2001 for 534.4 KVA was justified. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon Condition No.22.3.3.1 of the terms and conditions of supply, contended that since the meter was defective, the respondents ought to have determined the consumption charges by taking average of electricity supplied during the preceding three months. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that Condition No.22.3.3.1 has no application to the case on hand since the HT service was released to the petitioner only on 4.5.2001 and having found that the meter was defective, the same was replaced on 13.6.2001. As noticed above, the defective meter was in service from 4.5.2001 to 13.6.2001. Towards consumption charges for the month of May, 2001 (from 4.5.2001 to 24.5.2001) the Bill dated 1.6.2001 was issued and the same was revised subsequently reducing the consumption charges from Rs.67,500/- to Rs.50,872/- (9,958 units initially recorded were reduced 6,639 units). For the month of June, 2001, Bill dated 1.7.2001 (for the period from 24.5.2001 to 24.6.2001) was issued initially for a sum of Rs.5,93,495/-. However, as per the revised bill it was reduced to Rs.4,29,461/-. The material on record shows that for the period from 24.5.2001 to 13.6.2001 the units initially recorded were 74,957 and the same were reduced to 49,971. So far as the period from 13.6.2001 to 24.6.2001 i.e., after the installation of the new meter 26,946 units were recorded. Thus, the bill was issued for total 76,917 units i.e., 49,971 + 26,946 units. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the revised bills were issued as per the MRT test report dated 25.6.2001 which revealed that the meter was recording +50% error i.e., the meter was recording 150 units instead of 100 units in ERS Meters which indicated that the meter recorded 1/3rd excess units. Accordingly, the revised bills were issued taking into consideration 2/3rd consumption. Condition No.22.3.3.1 of the terms and conditions of supply relied upon by the petitioner runs as under : “The quantity of electricity supplied during the period which the meter ceased to function or became defective, shall be determined by taking average of electricity supplied during the preceding three months, the month in which the said meter ceased to function or became defective provided the condition in regard to use of electricity during the said three months were not different from those which prevailed during the period in which the meter ceased to function or became defective.” On a plain reading of the above condition, it is clear that the quantity of electricity supplied for the period during which the meter was defective shall be determined by taking average of electricity supplied during the preceding three months. It is further made clear that the said procedure has to be followed only where the condition in regard to use of electricity during the preceding three months were not different from the conditions which prevailed during the period in which the meter became defective. In the instant case, since the HT service connection was released to the petitioner only on 4.5.2001 and the meter was found to be defective on 13.6.2001, there was admittedly change in the condition with regard to use of electricity and therefore it is apparent that Condition No.22.3.3.1 has no application. However, in such circumstances Condition No.22.3.3.2 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply which runs as under is attracted: “The periods as mentioned above were different, assessment shall be made on the basis of any consecutive three months during the preceding 12 months when the conditions of working were not different.” As could be seen, the above condition deals with the procedure to be followed where the conditions in regard to use of electricity during three months preceding the month in which the meter became defective and the period during which the meter is found to be defective are different. Though it is contended on behalf of the respondents that since the petitioner’s service was not 12 months old, Condition No. 22.3.3.2 is also not applicable, I am unable to agree. On a careful reading of Condition No.22.3.3.2, I am of the opinion that the respondents are bound to make the assessment as per the Condition No.22.3.3.2. Since the said procedure has not been followed, the revised bills dated 1.6.2001 and 1.7.2001 issued for the months of May and June, 2001 are not sustainable and the same are hereby set aside. So far as the months of July and August are concerned, admittedly the said bills were in respect of the period after replacement of the defective meter. The vague allegation made by the petitioner that the new meter was also defective cannot be accepted in the absence of any material to substantiate the same. However, from the counter- affidavit, it appears that it was alleged by the respondents that the petitioner had unauthorizedly exceeded the sanctioned maximum demand. If that be so, it is open to the respondents to take the necessary steps in accordance with law. Since the same has nothing to do with the defective meter which was in service from 4.5.2001 to 13.6.2001, it is beyond the scope of the controversy involved in this writ petition. Accordingly, the revised bills dated 1.6.2001 and 1.7.2001 are set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to reassess the amounts payable by the petitioner on the basis of Condition No.22.3.3.2 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply and issue fresh bills for the said months after adjusting the amounts already paid by the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J. Dt. 20.04.2009 gbs