THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 23801 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in disconnecting power supply to Service Connection bearing No.41682 Cat-III and Service Connection No. 19089 Cat-III of petitioner’s shop bearing D.No.10-8/2/62 at Butchenna Koneru, Vizianagaram town and district as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice; consequently to direct respondents to restore power supply to the said service connections. On 31.8.2008 this Court directed respondents to restore power supply to the abovementioned service connections of petitioner’s shop, forthwith. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the said interim order, power supply to the said service connections has been restored. It appears, under the impugned notice dated 15.9.2005, petitioner was asked to regularize additional load of consumption than that of the contracted load, since it was noticed that the petitioner had utilized 8.32 HP against the sanctioned contract load of 5 HP. Petitioner was asked to pay the following amounts along with the prescribed application form. i) Rs.50/- for application fee. ii) Rs.6000/- for 3.32 HP for additional load. iii) Rs.2000/- for additional load towards additional consumption deposit. iv) Rs.150/- towards supervision charges It was further informed that if petitioner fails to come forward for restoration within 30 days from the date of notice, the service connection should be disconnected. Petitioner submitted a detailed application for the said notice dated 15.9.2005 on 5.10.2005 stating that neither the Inspector had visited the premises in question nor he is utilizing additional load of 8.32 HP as against the contracted load of 5 HP. According to petitioner the said reply was received by respondents and this fact is not denied in the counter specifically. Three years thereafter, respondent-authorities have visited the preemies of the petitioner and disconnected power supply to the service connection Nos. 19089 and 41682. Hence, the present writ petition. As noticed above, power supply was restored in view of the interim orders passed on 31.10.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the notice dated 15.9.2005 was issued without issuing any prior notice as to the allegation that the petitioner has been utilizing 8.32 as against the contracted load of 5 HP. The unilateral decision taken by respondents for payment of amounts as noticed above cannot be accepted, as no notice of any kind was issued before passing such an order. In fact, petitioner had filed reply on 5.10.2005 denying inspection as well as utilization of load of 8.32 HP as against the contracted load of 5 HP. The respondents have not passed any orders on the reply filed by the petitioner, but, however, made an attempt to disconnect the power supply on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with the notice dated 15.9.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned action of the respondents suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice. Neither at the time of issuing notice dated 15.9.2005 nor thereafter, no notice of any kind was issued for collecting the said charges alleging that the petitioner has been using additional load. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon an order passed in W.P. No. 1037 of 2009 and batch dated 8.6.2009, wherein it was held as follows: “The learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that the above-mentioned condition does not stipulate any notice before making a demand and therefore, no prior opportunity need be given. Though, literally construed, Condition No. 12.3.3 does not envisage a prior opportunity, in my considered opinion, the said condition is required to be read down to the effect that if the respondents come to the conclusion that the consumer has connected additional load, a notice to that effect is to be given, along with all the relevant material to show that the consumer has exceeded the contracted load, and objections be invited. After considering the objections, if any, filed by the consumer, the respondents shall have to determine the issue regarding the factum of connection of additional load. Interpreting this Condition in any other manner would only lead to arbitrariness and unilateral adjudication of the disputed by the licensee. In this view of the matter, as admittedly, the impugned demands are not preceded by notice and an opportunity of filing objections by the petitioners, they are quashed. The respondents are given liberty to initiate action afresh after following the procedure referred to above. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly”. I am of considered opinion that in this case also the impugned demand is not preceded by notice and opportunity of filing objections by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 15.9.2005 suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice and the writ petition is liable to be allowed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed holding the impugned action of respondents in disconnecting power supply to the petitioner’s shop as arbitrary and illegal. However, it is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to initiate action afresh, after following due process of law, if so advised, for the purpose of passing final assessment order after hearing the petitioner in person. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 28-10-2010. MVB.