IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.3489 of 2009 Between: M/s.Vamsi Art Printers Pvt. Ltd., H.No.16-6-872, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, reptd., by its Managing Director-G.Venugopala Krishna. … Petitioner And The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, reptd., by its Chief Managing Director and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu. Counsel for the respondents: Sri S.V.Ramana for Sri O.Manohar Reddy. This Court made the following: ORDER:- Proceedings dated 6-2-2009 issued by respondent No.2, wherein a sum of Rs.67,222/- was proposed to be collected, is the subject matter of this Writ Petition. The petitioner is the consumer of the respondents. On the strength of the inspection it was found that the meter of the petitioner was allegedly defective for the period from 7-12-2008 to 19-1-2009. Respondent No.2 thereupon issued the impugned proceedings, whereby a sum of Rs.67,222/- was found to be the amount recoverable from the petitioner towards the consumption made by it, but not recorded by the alleged defective meter. Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Condition No.7.5.1 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply framed by them; and that , therefore, the impugned demand cannot be sustained in law. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 it is, inter alia, stated that the impugned proceedings is only an internal correspondence, which was not even marked to the petitioner; and that in the absence of a final order making the demand from the petitioner, no cause of action has accrued to it to file the present Writ Petition. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that the same is styled as inspection report of respondent No.3. It is not in dispute that a copy of the said inspection report has not been served on the petitioner nor any demand has been made so far from the petitioner to pay the alleged short fall on account of the defective meter. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, at the hearing, fairly submitted that on the basis of the said inspection report the competent authority will initiate appropriate proceedings and complete the same by duly following the procedure prescribed under Condition No.7.5.1, and, as at present, there is neither any demand nor any threat of disconnection on account of non-payment of the disputed amount. This submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents is placed on record and the Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:01-6-2009 MNR.