IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12443 of 2002 Between: B. Narayana Reddy S/o Maddileti Reddy Service Connection bearing No. 443, Ramapuram Village, Owk Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Operation, A.P. Transco Kurnool Circle, Kurnool. 2 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, A.P. Transco Nandyal Division, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 3 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Operation, A.P. Transco Banaganapally Village & Mandal, Kurnool District. 4 The E.R.O/ Asst. Accounts Officer, A.P. Transco Banaganapally Village & Mandal, Kurnool 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 issue a Writ, order or direction, preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned consumption charges bills dt. 1-4-2002, 1-5-2002 and 1-6- 2002 for the petitioner's service connection bearing No. 443 of Ramapuram Village, Owk Mandal, Kurnool District by including the consumption charges of service connection No. 86 of M. Maheswar Reddy, even though petitioner is no way concerned with the other service connection, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of A.P.S.E.B. terms and conditions of supply and violative of Art. 14, 19, 21 & 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to issue fresh consumption charges bill for petitioner's service connection only, by deleting the charges included for service connection bearing Nos. 86. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner is a consumer of Electricity vide connection bearing No.443 of Ramapuram in Owk Mandal of Kurnool District. He has questioned the consumption bills, dated 01.04.2002, 01.05.2002 and 01.06.2002, issued by the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has got an electricity service connection bearing No.443, which he obtained for the purpose of running an industry, named “Maheswara Slab Polishing Industry” in Ramapuram village of Owk Mandal, Kurnool District. It is his case that his son Mr.B.Maheswar Reddy is also having another slab polishing unit, named “Arundhatha Slab Polishing Unit”, for which, he has obtained a separate service connection under service connection No.86. It is submitted that both the establishments are separate and distinct and they are in different premises. 3. On the ground that the consumption bills, which are impugned in this writ petition, are issued by the respondents by clubbing the power consumed not only by the petitioner, but also by his son, vide service connection No.86, this writ petition was filed. This Court, by an order, dated 15.07.2002, while admitting the writ petition, has granted interim orders, staying disconnection of power supply to the petitioner’s unit and the said orders continued all along. 4. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents. 5. The impugned bills are questioned mainly on the ground that without conducting any inquiry and without issuing any prior notice, both the service connections were clubbed for the purpose of issuing demand for collection of electricity consumption charges. It is the case of the petitioner that as much as both are different establishments situated in different premises, there is no reason or justification for the respondents in clubbing the power consumed by both the connections for the purpose of demand. 6. Though counter affidavit is not filed by the respondents, when the writ petition had come up for hearing yesterday i.e. on 31.03.2009, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents took time to ascertain as to whether any notice was issued to the petitioner before clubbing his service connection with that of his son for the purpose of raising demand for consumption charges. When the matter is taken up today, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned demand bills by clubbing the power consumed by his service connection with that of service connection No.86, which is in the name of his son. 7. The supply of electricity is governed by the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity, framed under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, which are in force now also. As per Clause 27 of the said terms and conditions, the establishments covered by different licenses and registrations, are to be treated as separate establishments, but however, there is a discretion vested with the Electricity Board to treat different establishments as a single establishment if they are situated in a single premises owned or leased by the same person. In this case, it is to be noted that the two different service connections are not in the name of same person. One is owned by the petitioner and the other one is in the name of his son by name Mr.B.Maheswar Reddy. Before clubbing the service connections for the purpose of demand, unless a summary inquiry is conducted by issuing proper notice, the discretion vested under Clause 27 could not have been exercised by the respondents. As it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before raising the impugned demand bills by clubbing the two service connections bearing Nos.443 and 86, on this short ground alone, the said bills are to be quashed. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned bills, dated 01.04.2002, 01.05.2002 and 01.06.2002, are hearby quashed. But however, this will not preclude the respondents to collect the arrears of consumption charges, if any, on the service connection of the petitioner as well as of his son, by treating the connections as separate connections, as per the terms and conditions of supply. 9. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st April 2009. ajr