HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8366 of 2005 Order: This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated above it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one on the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in levying penalty on the maximum demand of 1565.8 KVA at double the normal tariff rate in the bill dated 26-03-2005 for the consumption month of March, 2005 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and void and consequently set aside letter No.CGM (Comml.)/SE(C)/DE(C)/ADE-1/F.HT/D.No.938/05 dated 04-04-2005 of the second respondent.” 2. The petitioner, a Limited Company, involved in the business of manufacture of M.S. Ingots, has entered into agreement with the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board for supply of electricity with a connected load of 3000 KVA. On 08-02-2005, the petitioner applied for additional load of 1700 KVA over and above 3000 KVA which is already connected. For release of additional load of 1700 KVA, respondents have demanded for payment of an amount of Rs.25,50,000/- towards development charges and further Rs.25,50,000/- towards security deposit. So far as development charges are concerned, respondents have permitted the petitioner to pay the same in 24 equal monthly installments of Rs.1,06,250/- each and so far as security deposit is concerned, they permitted the petitioner to pay the same in 6 equal monthly installments of Rs.4,25,000/- each. Accordingly, on 16-03-2005, the petitioner paid first installment amount pertaining to development charges and on the same day it has paid first installment towards security deposit also. Thereafter, agreement dated 17-03-2005 was entered into. But, however, additional load was not released to the petitioner before the expiry of consumption month of March, 2005, which started from 20-02-2005. Though there was no release of additional load from the consumption month of March, 2005, the petitioner, in anticipation of release of additional load, connected the additional load from the consumption month of March, 2005 upto 4585.8 KVA. In that view of the matter, in the bill dated 26-03-2005, which was issued for the consumption month of March, 2005 commencing from 20-02- 2005 to 20-03-2005, the petitioner was charged for 3000 KVA at the normal rate of Rs.195/- per KVA and charged twice the normal tariff, i.e. Rs.290/- per KVA for 1565.8 KVA. 3. In this writ petition, imposition of double the tariff, over and above 3000 KVA, for 1565.8 KVA is questioned on the ground that there was delay on the part of the respondents in releasing the additional load for want of meters. It is submitted by Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, that as the agreement dated 16-03-2005 entered by the petitioner with the respondents came into force from the consumption month of March, 2005; as such, there is no reason or justification for imposing penal charge for exceeding the contracted load of 3000 KVA and charging twice the normal tariff, i.e. charging Rs.390/- per KVA for 1565.8 KVA. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Operations, Sanga Reddy, has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents stating that the actual date of releasing additional load of 1700 KVA was 20-03-2005. It is sated that the procedure followed for release of new services/additional load is only after paying the security deposit amount and development charges. It is stated that in the instant case, the petitioner has paid first installment of development charges and security deposit on 17-03-2005 and thereafter additional load was released and as the consumption month of March, 2005 started from 20-02- 2005 and ended on 20-03-2005, the petitioner is liable to pay penal charges for exceeding the contracted load. 5. Even according to the petitioner, it has entered into agreement with the respondents on 17-03-2005 and additional load was not released upto 20-03-2005. So far as consumption month of March is concerned, it has commenced from 20-02-2005 and ended by 20-03-2005. According to the petitioner, the first installment of development charges and the additional consumption deposit was paid on 17-03-2005 only. Hence, there was no occasion for the respondents to release the additional load for the consumption month of March, 2005, which commenced from 20-02-2005. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a clause in the agreement stating that the agreement is effective from the consumption month of March, 2005, the very same clause stipulates that the provisions of the agreement will come into force only from the date of commencement of supply of energy. It is to be seen that additional load was released on 20-03-2005 and the petitioner has exceeded the sanctioned load by connecting more than 3000 KVA and using the load upto 1565.8 KVA from the consumption month of March, 2005 which commenced from 20-02-2005. In that view of the matter, the action of the respondents in demanding penal charges for exceeding the contracted load and charging twice the normal tariff, i.e. charging Rs.390/- per KVA for 1565.8 KVA is as per the notified tariff order and therefore the same cannot be found fault with. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the interim order dated 01-09-2005 passed by this court, out of the penal charges the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to pay the balance amount within a period of two months from today. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. June 24, 2009 MRR