IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14910 of 2009 Between: P.Suryanarayana Raju S/o.Appalanarasimha Raju R/o.D.No.4/118/B, VIZIANAGARAM. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Distribution Sub Division, APEPDC Ltd., Vizianagaram District. 3 The Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO/Two/ APEPDC., Ltd., Vizianagaram. 4 The Divisional Engineer / Operation, APEPDCL, Vizianagaram. 5 The Supdt. Engineer, Operation Circle, APEPDCL, Vizianagaram. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.JAYANTI.S.C.SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents:MR. S.V.RAMANA FOR MR.O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notice bearing No.ADE / LSD / VZM / F.DOC / D.No.294/09, dated 17.04.2009 issued by respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner was called upon to regularize the additional connected load by paying Service Line and Development Charges and Security Deposit to a tune of Rs.20,200/- within thirty days from the date of it’s service. At the hearing, it is conceded by Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that before issuing the impugned notice, no prior notice was given to the petitioner affording an opportunity to him to file objections. The petitioner’s case is that he has not exceeded the contracted load. Without giving an opportunity of his submitting objections, the petitioner cannot be mulcted with additional liability by unilaterally concluding that he exceeded the contracted load. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the relevant condition under which the impugned notice was issued did not envisage the procedure for issuing a prior notice. I am afraid it is too late in the day, for the respondents to advance such a contention. Unless the principles of natural justice are expressly excluded, every State and its instrumentalities are bound to follow those principles as held by the Supreme Court in a plethora of judgments. ( S e e STATE OF ORISSA v. DR. (MISS) BINAPANI DEVI AND OTHERS[1], MANEKA GANDHI v. UNION OF INDIA[2] and A.K.KRAIPAK AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA[3]) Since no such procedure was followed by the respondents, the impugned notice is set aside. The respondents are given liberty to initiate fresh action after giving due notice to the petitioner and opportunity of hearing him. They are directed to restore the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection forthwith. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th JULY, 2009. kvni [1] AIR 1967 SC 1269 [2] AIR 1978 SC 597 [3] 1969 (2) SCC 262