THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 1244 OF 2005 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the first respondent dated 20.9.2004 confirming the proceedings of the second respondent dated 16.4.2004, whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay an amount of Rs.61,165/- towards differential energy charges for use of domestic connection for commercial purposes. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by order dated 20.9.2004 confirming the orders of the second respondent. Hence, the present writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that he is running a Tea Stall under the name and style ‘Hrudhya Parlour’ at Poorna Market, Visakapatnam, which premises was taken by him on lease. The respondents had issued two service connections for said premises i.e., S.C.No. 029223 a residential one and another in S.C. No. 007269 a commercial one. The petitioner contends that he is using the commercial connection for his tea stall and paying the energy charges regularly and that other tenants of the subject premises were using the domestic connection. While so, on 15.11.2003, the third respondent inspected the premises and registered a complaint alleging that petitioner is committing malpractice in use of energy from residential purpose for his commercial establishment ‘Hrudaya parlour’ and by proceedings dated 9.12.2003 he has provisionally estimated the loss sustained by the APEPDCL at Rs.62,265/-, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 22.12.2003. Thereafter, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 19.12.2003 which was followed by proceedings dated 16.4.2004 confirming the assessment and directing the petitioner to pay the differential energy charges estimated at Rs.61,165/-. The petitioner alleges that the orders dated 16.4.2004 were passed without considering his explanation dated 22.12.2003 submitted by him pursuant to proceedings dated 9.12.2003 issued by the third respondent. The appeal filed by the petitioner was ultimately dismissed by proceedings dated 20.9.2004 holding that the consumer/petitioner has committed the malpractice in use of energy and is liable to compensate the loss sustained by APEPDCL. A counter affidavit is filed by third respondent stating that the premises of the petitioner was inspected on 15.11.2003 wherein the malpractice committed by the petitioner was detected and the petitioner without any objection has duly signed in the inspection notes acknowledging the malpractice committed by him. Thereafter he was issued with provisional estimate vide proceedings dated 9.12.2003 demanding the petitioner to pay the loss sustained by organisation estimated at Rs.62,265/-, for which the petitioner has not submitted any explanation, as such a show cause notice dated 19.12.2003 was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. However, the petitioner did not file any explanation, as such, proceedings dated 16.4.2004 were issued directing the petitioner to pay the loss sustained by the organisation for misuse of domestic connection estimated at Rs.61,165/-, which order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.9.2004. On perusal of the material available on record, it is noticed that though the petitioner contends that he has submitted his explanation, he has not chosen to file a copy of such explanation nor there is any material in support of his contention, however, this Court is not inclined to go into such disputed facts in the present proceedings. Having heard the counsel on either side and on perusal of the material this Court is of a considered view that the petitioner has not made out any ground warranting interference and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim orders subject to payment of Rs.30,000/- and the petitioner has complied with the said condition. Having regard to compliance of the conditional order, this Court deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to pay the balance due amount in two equal monthly instalments, first of which shall be paid by the end of February, 2011 and the second instalment shall be paid by the end of March, 2011. It is needless to mention that in default of payment of any of the instalments as permitted above, it is open for the respondents to take appropriate action pursuant to impugned orders, for recovery of the amount. Subject to above direction, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 10.2.2011 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 1244 OF 2005 DATE: 10.2.2011