IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16352 of 2008 Between: Smt. Pullapadi Rajani … Petitioner And Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations), A.P. Northern Power Distribution Co., Ltd., Bhupalpally, Warangal & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri Anil Kumar for Sri O. Manohar Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16352 of 2008 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the demand for payment of Rs.1,48,481/- towards the purported arrears of electricity charges pertaining to service connection No.3003 of the petitioner. The petitioner has earlier filed Writ Petition No.12030 of 2004 questioning the order of assessment made on 24.04.2004. The said writ petition was dismissed on 15.02.2008. Following the said dismissal, the respondents raised the impugned demand. At the hearing, Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that against order dated 15.02.2008 in Writ Petition No.12030 of 2004, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.1116 of 2008 and that a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 17.09.2009 partly allowed the said writ appeal while directing the respondents to restrict the liability of the petitioner to the period of six months immediately preceding the date of inspection of the service and further directed that the excess amount, if any paid by the petitioner, shall be refunded to her by way of adjustment in future consumption charges. The learned counsel stated that the impugned demand made by the respondents represents the same amount, which was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.12030 of 2004. He further stated that in pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench, the respondents have revised the assessment on 19.01.2010 by reducing the same to Rs.73,190/-. He placed a copy of the said assessment order before the Court. The learned counsel therefore stated that this writ petition deserves to be disposed of in the light of the revised final assessment order. The learned Standing counsel representing the respondents has not disputed the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that the respondents have made a revised final assessment order, the demand in excess of the said amount is not enforceable against the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WVMP.No.2451 of 2008 and WPMP.No.21176 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 09.06.2010 ES