IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2912 of 2006 Between: M/s.Panduragna Ice Factory, Rep by its Partner Sri P.Parameshwar Rao, S/o.Veeraiah, R/o.Kamaragiripalem, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C. Ltd., Rajahmundry, E.G.District. 2 The Divisional Engineer, Operation, Amalapuram, E.G.District. 3 The Asst.Divisional Engineer, Operations, Amalapuram, E.G.District. 4 The Senior Accounts Officer, Circle Office, Rajahmundry, E.G.District. 5 The Asst.Accounts Officer, E.R.O., Amalapuram, E.G.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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.DEE/10/AMP/ERO/AMP/JAO-III/U/Monthly/D.No.16/06 dated.21-1- 2006 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent as illegal, improper, unjust and violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri A.VEERA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: MR.V.AJAYAKUMAR The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 27-04-2005 issued by the second respondent and also letter dated 21-01-2006 issued by the fourth respondent. The petitioner is a Low Tension consumer falling under L.T. III category. On the basis of inspection made by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, DPE-I, Rajahmundry, on 29-12-2004, a notice was issued on 31-12-2004 by the third respondent, wherein the petitioner was called upon to show cause why a sum of Rs.9,09,948/- representing the value of unbilled electricity consumed by the petitioner from 27-07-2002 to 15-12-2004 shall not be collected. The petitioner filed its explanation and after considering the same, the second respondent passed the impugned order on 27-04-2005. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition is filed. Heard Sri A.Veera Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned standing counsel for the respondents. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the revised demand is made on the purported ground that the respondents, while issuing bills from 27-07-2002, failed to take notice of the fact that on the said date the CTPT set forming part of the metering equipment, which had the capacity of 10/5A was replaced with another set of 20/5A capacity and consequently, the multiplication factor (M.F.) got changed to ‘2’ instead of ‘1’. The case of the respondents is that despite change of M.F. from ‘1’ to ‘2’, the billing section continued to raise bills by applying ‘1’ as M.F. instead of ‘2’. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that against the order impugned in this writ petition, an appeal lies to the first respondent. Ordinarily, this Court does not entertain a writ petition if the aggrieved person has an effective alternative remedy. This Court’s reluctance to entertain this writ petition and adjudicate on merits is all the more due to reason that the issue is purely technical in nature. The fact that there was change of CTPT set is not disputed by the petitioner. His only contention is that mere change of CTPT set would not result in change of M.F. While the respondents say that such a change in M.F has taken place, the petitioner takes a converse position. This being purely a technical issue, this Court will not be in a position to decide the same. It is, therefore, more appropriate if the petitioner is relegated to the appellate authority viz. the first respondent to decide the dispute whether by changing CTPT set in the year 2002, the M.F. of the petitioner’s meter has increased to ‘2’ instead of ‘1’. The first respondent shall decide this issue after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in the appeal to be filed by him. The petitioner shall file an appeal within a period of four weeks from today and on receipt of the same, the first respondent shall decide after hearing the petitioner within a period of eight weeks thereafter. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, this Court stayed recovery of the demand. I am of the view that to balance the equities, the respondents shall not disconnect the power supply subject to the petitioner paying towards the impugned demand, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only) within a period of four weeks from today. This interim arrangement shall continue till the disposal of the appeal. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ 05-03-2008 usd