IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 18635 of 2008 Between: Ahmed Bin Omer, S/o. Omer Bin Ali, R/O. H.NO. 18-11-98, Barkas, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director, APCPDCL, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, South Circle, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 3 E.R.O. III (APCPDCL), Naya Pul, near Salar Jung Museum, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent in demanding the consumption charges of Rs. 32,546/- towards the arrears of Electricity Consumption along with the Surcharge and also the disconnection of Power Supply in respect of Petitioners Service Connection No. N 1000176 in premises bearing No. 22-6-142, situated at Machli Kaman, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondents to restore the Power Supply to the Petitioners' Service Connection fore with, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.M.A.BASITH Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the APCPDCL. 2. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the demand of consumption charges of Rs.32,546/- towards arrears of the energy consumed, and by the disconnection of the power supply by an order, dated 25-08-2008. 3. The service connection was in the name of the petitioner’s father for a shop in premises bearing Door No.22-6-142 situated at Machli Kaman, Hyderabad. Petitioner admits that a “long back” the respondent had issued a bill for an amount of Rs.10,000/-. On enquiry by the petitioner it was intimated that the assessment was on the basis of a new tariﬀ rate. Petitioner sought time for payment of the amount but no time was granted. It is further admitted that every month the petitioner was being billed for the arrears but he was paying only Rs.5000/- per month. 4. Demonstrably the arrears accumulated to Rs.32,546/- and since the petitioner was persistent in the default, by an order, dated 25-08-2008, the supply was disconnected and the petitioner intimated that on payment of an amount of Rs.32,546/- and on payment of other incidental charges such as reconnection and other charges, the supply would be restored. Petitioner neither pleads nor contends that he enjoys any legal immunity for non payment of the amount. 5. In the circumstances, there is no legal right that entitles the petitioner to refuse payment nor is there any inﬁrmity in the conduct of the respondents. Petitioner has also not impleaded the APCPDCL. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 27th August, 2008. Tsy To 1 The Director, APCPDCL, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, South Circle, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 3 E.R.O. III (APCPDCL), Naya Pul, near Salar Jung Museum, Hyderabad. 4 2CCs to 5 2CD copies