THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4357 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner intended to establish an Industry, in the year 2000. It was connected with power supply of 350 KVA to be supplied through a CTPT Set (for short ‘the Set’). Even before the factory commenced, the Set failed. On a report submitted by the petitioner and after conducting the inspection, the Set was replaced. It appears that the new Set was also defective. The petitioner had to conduct certain test productions, particularly in the presence of the consultants, who are said to have come from abroad. In the process, the power was utilized, even though the Set was not in perfect condition. The actual production is said to have commenced in the last week of May, 2006. Through proceedings, dated 24.10.2000, the Superintendent Engineer, Operation, Ranga Reddy Circle, the 3rd respondent, assessed the consumption charges of the petitioner for the period from 23.03.2000 to 23.05.2000, at Rs.3,59,280. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent i.e. the Chief Engineer, Operation, Metro Zone, Hyderabad. The appeal was rejected through order, dated 04.02.2002. Hence, this Writ Petition. Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is not even an allegation of theft or pilferage of power and the unit did not go into production before the assessment was done. He contends that the respondents proceeded as though the unit become functional at once and reached the highest level of production. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be penalized for the defect in the equipment supplied by the respondents. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner ought to have waited till the Set is rectified and that the assessment was made duly taking into account the consumption of power for the subsequent period. Even before the petitioner commenced its production, the Set, fitted at the site by the respondents, went out of order. It was, no doubt, replaced, but that hardly was of any use. On its part the petitioner did maintain restraint in utilizing the power supply, when the equipment was defective. However, the test runs had to be conducted at different points of time, particularly when the Experts visited. Unpreparedness on the part of the petitioner, at such times, would have visited him with penal consequences, apart from delay in commencement of the unit. The petitioner does not dispute consumption of power as such. What is in question is the extent thereof. The 3rd respondent proceeded on the assumption that the unit has become functional from the date of commencement of supply. It hardly needs any mention that the factory of the nature established by the petitioner needs many test runs and neither the power supply, nor the functioning of the unit can be said to be optimum, from the beginning. This Court is of the view that the figures at 60% of the consumption charges, for the period subsequent to the date of replacement of the Set for the second time, can safely be taken. The petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, at the stage of filing of the appeal. It is required to deposit a further sum of Rs.50,000/-, without any interest. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, reducing the amount, assessed against the petitioner, vide the impugned proceedings, to Rs.2,50,000/-. The balance of Rs.50,000/- shall not carry interest, if paid within 8 weeks from today. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.22.03.2010. GJ