IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11788 OF 2002 THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Between: O. Lakshmi Rangaiah .... Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer, Operation A.P. Transco, Kurnool Circle and 3 others ...Respondents Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demanding electricity consumption charges, vide bills dated 01-04-2002, 01-05-2002 and 01-06-2002, by clubbing the consumption charges of service connection bearing No.60 of Sri O. Muralinath, with that of his service connection, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the proprietor of Sri Ganga Slab Polishing Industry, situated in Ramapuram village, Owk Mandal, Kurnool District, which is involved in the business of polishing slabs/stones. For the purpose of running the said unit, he obtained electricity service connection, vide service connection bearing No.439 of Ramapuram village. In the survey number in which the petitioner’s unit is located, there is yet another unit owned by one Sri O. Muralinath, the brother of the petitioner, who is availing power supply, vide service connection bearing No.60. It is the case of the petitioner that his unit is no way connected with that of the unit of his brother and in spite of the same without issuing any notice, respondents have issued bills dated 01-04-2001, 01-05-2002 and 01-06-2002 demanding consumption charges on service connection No.60 also. It is the case of the petitioner that the electricity service provided to him is governed by the terms and conditions of supply framed under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and as per condition No.27, his unit cannot be clubbed with that of his brother’s unit, as they stand on different names. It is alleged that, in any event, without issuing prior notice and opportunity, respondents ought not to have issued the impugned bills by clubbing the consumption charges of the petitioner’s unit with that of his brother’s unit. At the stage of admission, this court, by order dated 02- 07-2002, passed interim orders subject to the condition of the petitioner paying the consumption charges on the service connection bearing service connection No.439. The said order has continued all along. Though the writ petition is of the year 2002, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents controverting the allegations of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the supply of electricity to the petitioner is governed by the terms and conditions of supply framed by the Electricity Board in exercise of powers under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. As per condition No.27 of the terms and conditions, the units/establishments, having distinct set-up and staff or owned or leased by different persons or covered by different licences or registrations under any law where such procedures are applicable, will be deemed to be separate establishments. However, as per the proviso, the Board may treat at its discretion, two or more separate establishments situated within a single premises owned or leased by the same person and requiring electricity for purposes covered under same category or tariff, as single establishment. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred by the petitioner that his unit is an independent one and it has got nothing to do with the unit of his brother Sri O. Muralinath, who is availing power supply vide service connection bearing No.60. Having regard to the facts of the present case, Condition No.27 of the terms and conditions of supply cannot be invoked for the reason that though Sri O. Muralinath, who is availing power supply vide service connection bearing No.60, is the brother of the petitioner, but, the unit owned by him is in a different name. As much as the two unit in question are not held by the same person, within the meaning of the condition referred above, I am of the opinion that the two units cannot be clubbed together for the purpose of demanding consumption charges. Moreover, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents controverting the allegations of the petitioner. In the circumstances, I set aside the impugned bills to the extent of clubbing the electricity consumption charges of service connection bearing No.60 of Ramapuram village, Owk Mandal, Kurnool District, with that of the service connection of the petitioner bearing No.439. It is clarified that if there are any grounds for clubbing both the units in question, this order will not preclude the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as per the terms and conditions of supply and Electricity Laws applicable in this regard. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J September 10, 2009 Gk/MRR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11788 OF 2002 DATE:10.09.2009 GK.