IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19082 of 2004 Between: Pankaj Woven Sacks (P) Limited, D.No.105, D. Block, IInd Floor, Surya Towers, Secunderabad -34, Rep. by its director, Baburam Goel, S/o. Kashiram Goel, Aged 58 Years, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Operation ,North Circle, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional Engineer, OPC-VI, Bowenpally, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, D-XVI, Hyderabad. 4 Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle-North, Hyderabad. .....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 issue an appropriate Writ order or orders, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in issuing the notice of demand dated 6th October, 2004 No.SE/OP/HYD/SAO/JAO/HT/IV/HDN/787/D.No.284 as illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside the consequently direct the Respondents not to disconnect the petitioner's Link Services connection i.e. L.T. or any other commercial services. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed by a Private Limited Company challenging the demand notice, dated 06-10-2004, issued in letter No.SE/OP/Hyd/SAO/JAO/HT/IV/HDN/787/D.No.284 by the Superintending Engineer, Operation, North Circle, APCPDCL, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. The petitioner company has entered into H.T. Agreement with the APCPDCL on 15-03-2003 for supply of electricity with a contracted maximum demand of 250 KVA, which was subsequently enhanced to 400 KVA with effect from 22-09-2003. It is not in dispute that clause 26.8 of the terms and conditions of supply framed under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 constitutes part and parcel of the agreement. Clause 26.8 of the terms and conditions of supply reads as under: “8. Termination of Agreement in respect of H.T. Supply : The consumer is at liberty to seek reduction or termination of the agreement by giving three months notice in writing expressing his intention to do so at any time after the period of two years from the date of commencement of agreement. The Board can terminate the agreement, at any time giving one week’s notice if the consumer violates the terms of the agreement, or the terms and conditions of supply prescribed by the A.P.S.E.B. Board from time to time or the provision of any law touching the agreement including the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and rules made thereunder.” On 20-07-2004, the petitioner made a representation to the Superintending Engineer, Operation, North Circle, APCPDCL, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, stating that due to unexpected market fall and unavoidable circumstances, they have closed down the production unit and requested to disconnect the power supply and to refund the security deposits. Acting on the representation of the petitioner, the power supply was disconnected on 12-08-2004. Subsequently, calculating the minimum charges in terms of the agreement, which includes minimum charges for a period of two years, respondents, after adjusting available consumption deposit, demanded an amount of Rs.16,63,298.33 paise. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as much as respondents have terminated the agreement, they have no authority or jurisdiction to collect the minimum charges. On perusal of the proceedings, dated 07-09-2004, which was produced by the learned standing counsel, as per the directions of this Court, to clarify the ambiguity regarding termination, it is clear that the agreement was not terminated, but power supply was disconnected pursuant to representations dated 20-07-2004 and 12-08-2004. As per the terms and conditions of supply, the consumer is at liberty to seek reduction or termination of the agreement by giving three months notice in writing expressing his intention to do so at any time after the period of two years from the date of commencement of the agreement. In that view of the matter, as much as the representation of the petitioner, dated 20-07- 2004, is only for disconnection of the power supply and as the petitioner was precluded to terminate the contract for a period of two years, the petitioner is liable to pay minimum consumption charges in terms of the agreement. Further, from the condition No.33.2 of the terms and conditions of supply it is clear that consumer is liable to pay the minimum charges, even if no electricity actually consumed for any reason whatsoever and also if the electricity was consumed less than the minimum charges. In that view of the matter, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not liable to pay the minimum charges cannot be accepted. As much as no other ground is raised, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition to interfere with the impugned demand notice. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 30th June, 2009. skmr