IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 9378 of 2004 Between: M/s. Bhupathi Industries, Gorrekunta Village rep. by Partner Sri B. Om Prakash, S/o Gowri Shankar R/o H.No.8-11-33, (Sabitha Complex), R N T Road, Warangal Town & Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent Engineer, Operation/ N P D C L / Warangal 2 The Asst. Divisional Engineer (Distribution) Warangal 3 The Accounts Officer, G R C Warangal .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularlry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceeding in letter No.AAO/GRC/Wgl/JAO(B)/BS-/D.No.138/03 dt: 20-5-2004 demanding a sum of Rs.63,588/- as arbitrary, illegal unfair and unjust and set aside the same in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner approached this Court through this writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the proceedings, dated 20-05-2004 demanding a sum of Rs.63,588/- as arbitrary, illegal, unfair and unjust and to set aside the same. The petitioner is a partnership firm running Para Boiled Rice Mills. The contention of the petitioner is that the mill was closed for repairs and renovation from 23-03-2004 to 28-04-2004 and the said factum was proved through the endorsement of the officer of the respondent, dated 23-04-2004 in respect of S.C.No.473, wherein he mentioned that while testing the meter recording, it is observed that the display mechanism has gone of S.C.No.473, further industry is under overhauling. On the basis of the above endorsement, the petitioner contended that the demand issued by the respondents is excessive and it is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that by the date of inspection of the officer on 23-04-2004, elevated and welding machines are functioning, therefore, the petitioner is liable under condition No.22.3.3.1 and contended that the assessment made by the respondents is correct. The is ambiguity between the parties regarding the period during which the mill was closed and the respondents’ counsel also did not produce the notes said to be written by the investigating officer and endorsement of the petitioner obtained on it. The petitioner requested time to produce the document, if any, regarding the intimation to the respondents that the mill is under overhauling and it is not functioning. Since there is a disputed question of fact, it is not desirable for this Court to decide the issue under writ proceedings, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. There is an appeal provided to the Superintending Engineer under Condition No.22.3.3.4. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an Appeal to the Superintending Engineer by raising all the grounds as to why the demand is not sustainable and adduce such oral and documentary evidence before him to enable him to pass the orders on merits according to law. During the pendency of the Appeal, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps for recovery of the balance amount from the petitioner. __________________ DR. G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date:28-02-2008 YCR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Superintendent Engineer, Operation/ N P D C L / Warangal 2 The Asst. Divisional Engineer (Distribution) Warangal 3 The Accounts Officer, G R C Warangal 4 2 CCs to Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, Standing Counsel for APSEB, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies.