IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14240 of 2009 Between: M/s Leela Marine, Rep by its Managing Partner, G.Seshagiri Rao, Plot No.14, Fishing Harbour, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of India, Rep by its Secretary (Ports) New Delhi. 2 Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Rep by its Plant Manager, Ore Handling Complex, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the demand in Lr.No.ICME/OHC/ELEC/2024 dated 12-06-2009 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, null, void, arbitrary and against the rules Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : MRS. G.HARINI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14240 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner company is running a Ice factory under the name and style of M/s. Leela Marine Ice Factory at No.1A-Block, Uda Udyog Bhavan, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. It is stated that the petitioner was granted a long lease in respect of the premises in question by the respondent No.2 – Visakhapatnam Port Trust - and that being a bulk consumer of Northern Power Distribution Company Limited (NPDCL) , the 2nd respondent has been supplying the electrical power to the petitioner factory out of the power received by it. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been paying the electricity consumption charges to the 2nd respondent as per the electricity meter readings installed in the premises of the petitioner’s Ice factory. It appears that the electricity meter installed in the premises of the petitioner’s Ice factory was found to be defective and the same was replaced on 24.03.2001. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,39,385.80 ps towards the back-billing amount of consumption charges on account of the defective meter. The said amount was paid by the petitioner. Long thereafter, the 2nd respondent by letter dated 1.06.2009 made a further demand of Rs.10,01,258/- allegedly due from the petitioner towards interest on the back-billing amount of Rs.8,39,385.50 ps The petitioner was called upon to pay the said amount within 15 days failing which the electrical service connection would be disconnected. Though the petitioner disputed its liability to pay the interest as demanded, the 2nd respondent refused to consider and was insisting on payment under the threat of disconnection of power supply. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the impugned demand dated 1.6.2009 is arbitrary, illegal and apart from being violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. An identical question raised by a similarly situated person in W.P.No.14495 of 2009 has been considered in detail and by a separate order passed today i.e., 22.7.2009, the said writ petition was dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner therein to work out the appropriate remedy available under common law for redressal of its grievance. Following the said order, this Writ Petition shall also stand dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy available under common law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 22.07.2009 gbs Note:- CC by tomorrow. (B/O) gbs