IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21099 of 2006 Between: K. Neelakantam, S/o. Sambaiah, R/o. Flat No. G4, Sai Priya Apartments, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent Engineer, Electrical Operation, APCPDCL, Kukatpally Division, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Divisional Engineer Electrical, Operation, APCPDCL, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Assistant Divisional Engineer. Operation, APCPDCL, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. .....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 to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Attachment Notice No. Nil dated 05-10-2006 is highly arbitrary, irregular besides illegal and agaisnt the principls of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RAVI SHANKER Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.SREERAMULU REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21099 of 2006 ORAL ORDER The petitioner herein was granted two electricity service connections bearing Nos.3713-4349 and 3713-4343 for the purpose of running a small scale industry. According to the petitioner, the industry was closed in 1986 and immediately thereafter he had surrended both the service connections. The petitioner also claims that there were no arrears at all in respect of both the above said service connections. However, the impugned notice dated.05-10-2006 was issued by the 2nd respondent-the Divisional Engineer, Electrical Operation, APCPDCL calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,28,334/- towards the alleged arrears of consumption charges within seven days failing which the proceedings would be initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act against the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner. The said notice has been challenged in this writ petition contending inter alia that the impugned action of the respondents in demanding a sum of Rs.1,28,334/- towards alleged consumption charges without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation, is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended by the petitioner that the impugned notice is absolutely vague and lacks material particulars as to the alleged arrears of consumption charges. The 3rd respondent ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit denying the plea of the petitioner that the petitioner’s industry was closed and the service connections were surrendered by the petitioner in the year 1986. It is also stated that the petitioner made certain payments during the years 1988 to 1999 which itself shows that the petitioner was utilizing the power through the service connections in question. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The fact that the impugned notice was not preceded by any notice to the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondents in their counter aﬃdavit. Moreover as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned notice is vague and does not contain the material particulars with regard to the alleged arrears due from the petitioner. In the circumstances and particularly keeping in view that the petitioner is disputing the entire liability, it is necessary in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation against the impugned demand. Along with the counter-aﬃdavit the respondents have furnished a detailed statement showing the alleged outstanding arrears against S.C.Nos.0037/13-04349 belonging to the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file the objections of the petitioner within two weeks. In the circumstances while setting aside the impugned notice the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit his objections regarding the alleged arrears as shown in the statement annexed to the counter-aﬃdavit within two weeks from today. Thereafter the respondents shall consider the said objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law before taking any steps for recovery of the amounts due if any. No order as to costs. ___________ G.ROHINI,J 24th September,2008 Note: Issue CC In two days (B/O) *TSNR