THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.20285 of 2007 ORDER: 1 This Writ Petition is filed with the prayer which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing Lr.No.SE/O/KDP/SAO/ REV/HT/ D.No.564/07 dated 30.06.2007 and LR.No.SE/ O/KDP /SAO /REV /JAQ /HT /DNo.731/07 dated 20.08.2007 directing the petitioner to pay low power factor Surcharge immediately, otherwise the service be ordered to be disconnected is bad, illegal, arbitrary unjust and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said Lr.No. SE/O/ KDP/SAO/REV/HT/D.No.564/07 dated 30.06.2007 and LR. No. SE/O/KDP/SAO /REV /JAQ/HT/D.No. 731/07 dated 20.08.2007 and pass such other and further order or orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2 The petitioner is a small scale industry which is engaged in the business of stone crushing. It has obtained electricity power connection vide service connection bearing No.1053 under Category III. When the petitioner was issued letter No.SE/O/KDP/SAO /Rev/HT/ D.No.66/07 dated 07.02.2007 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,94,556/- towards low power factor surcharge, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.8567 of 2007. On the ground that the said proceedings in the earlier Writ Petition were issued without prior notice and opportunity to the petitioner, the said Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, keeping open to the respondents to issue show cause notice to the petitioner for levy of low power factor surcharge and determine the same. 3 Pursuant to the directions of this Court in the said Writ Petition No.8567 of 2007, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice demanding an amount of Rs.1,94,556/-. It is the allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner did not maintain power factor while consuming the power during the months of March 2005 to July 2005. Having regard to the power factor maintained during the said months, the respondents have arrived at a demand of low power factor surcharge to a tune of Rs.2,53,806-60 ps. On the ground that an amount of Rs.59,250-57 ps was already collected towards the capacitor surcharge for the said period from the petitioner, further amount of Rs.1,94,555/- was demanded towards low power factor surcharge. The petitioner has also filed a representation with reference to the show cause notice issued to it. But as the power factor was not maintained as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the said demand of Rs.1,94,555/- is made against the petitioner towards low power factor surcharge. 4 In this Writ Petition, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that only in view of the audit of the section the impugned demand is made and there is no basis for such a demand from the petitioner which is a small scale industry. 5 The power supply is as per the terms and conditions of supply claimed by the respondent/distribution company. The power factor for the month shall be the ratio of Kilowatt hours to the Kilo-volt Ampere hours supplied to the consumer during the month. The power factor shall be calculated up to two decimal places. The power factor of the consumers installation shall not be less than 0.90. If the power factor falls below 0.90 during any month, the consumer is liable to pay a surcharge as per the slab rates in view of the terms and conditions of supply. 6 In the impugned order, it is clearly stated that during the month of March 2005, the power factor was 0.39, in the month of April it was 0.44, in the month of May 2005 it was 0.49, in the month of June 2005 it was 0.50 and in the month of July 2005 it was 0.54. The power factor as indicated in the impugned proceedings itself makes it clear that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of supply by not maintaining power factor with the petitioners installation to keep up it above 0.90. It is true that during the said months, initially an amount of Rs.59,250-57 was collected from the petitioner for the months of March 2005 to July 2005 on account of less capacitor surcharge. But there is no such levy for that purpose as per the terms and conditions of supply. Merely because some amount is collected towards less capacitor surcharge, which is not contemplated under the terms and conditions of supply, the same will not preclude the respondents from collecting the surcharge on account of low power factor surcharge. While arriving at the figure of low power factor surcharge, in the impugned proceedings, the respondents have deducted an amount of Rs.59,250-57 ps which was collected from the petitioner towards the capacitor surcharge. As it is not in dispute that the petitioner / consumer has not maintained the power factor as per the power factor range during the months of March 2005 to July 2005, it cannot be said that the amount under demand is illegal and arbitrary. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not notified while paying the regular charges is also no ground to invalidate the impugned demand. If the power factor is not maintained as per the terms and conditions of supply, mere payment of consumption and demand charges will not absolve the liability of low power factor surcharge on the consumer. In any event, the impugned proceedings are only reminders consequent to the order dated 18.05.2007 issued in letter No.SE/O/KDP/SAO /Rev/HT/ D.No.66/07 dated 07.02.2007 to the petitioner, determining the liability of the petitioner for payment of an amount of Rs.1,94,555/- towards low power factor surcharge. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition for grant of direction as prayed for. However, in the counter it is stated that pursuant to the orders of this Court the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.97,280/- on 22.10.2007. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner has already paid 50% of the amount under demand, the petitioner is granted further time of six months from today to pay the balance amount. 8 With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. --------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 13.12.2011 Kvsn