The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.33302 of 2011 Date: 19-12-2011 Between: M/s.K.V.M.K.Industries, A Proprietorshop Concern at Atchannapalem, Nallajerla Mandal, WG District, rep. by its Proprietor K.Ganga Raju. ..... Petitioner AND Eastern Power Distribution Co. of A.P.Limited, Near Gurudwar, P & T. Colony, Sithammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.Sudeep Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Smt.Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, SC for APEPDCL The Court made the following : Order: The petitioner- Industry, which is in arrears of electricity charges, filed this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by the rejection of its request, for permitting it to pay such arrears in installments, by respondent No.2 vide Lr.No.CGM/Expr/GM(R)SAO(R)AAO(R2)/D.No.1152/11, dated 17-10-2011. The petitioner made representation, dated 04-09- 2011, to respondent No.2 for permitting it to clear the electricity dues in six installments. By the impugned proceeding, respondent No.2 has rejected the said request. As rightly argued by Sri S.Sudeep Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, when power is vested in respondent No.2, to consider the request for repayment of electricity dues in installments, under Clause 8.2.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of supply, it is the duty and obligation of respondent No.2 to consider the same in an objective manner. In the event, such request is viewed as unreasonable or, that for any other sustainable reasons, such request cannot be accepted, respondent No.2 shall record the reasons for such rejection. In the impugned rejection order, respondent No.2 made a cryptic observation that the request for payment of outstanding dues in installments “is not considered”. This observation cannot constitute sufficient reason for rejection of the petitioner’s request. At the hearing, Smt.Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL, representing the respondents, sought to justify the impugned order. In my opinion, the reasons, which are otherwise not found, cannot be supplemented by the Counsel. Respondent No.2, being the authority vested with the power and discretion to grant permission for repayment of the electricity dues in installments, is bound to apply his mind and record the reasons in the event of rejection of such request. As respondent No.2 failed to follow this fair procedure, the impugned proceeding, dated 17-10-2011, is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s request, for repayment of the electricity dues in installments, and pass a speaking order, if he does not intend to accept the same, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is allowed, accordingly, to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WPMP.No.41393 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 19th December, 2011 LUR