THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 10059 OF 2010 Dated 28th April, 2010 Between: Relangi Rama Rao …Petitioner And Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited and four others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Mangena Sri Rama Rao Counsel for the respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is field for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 08.04.2010 issued by respondent No.3. The petitioner owns a rice mill, which holds Service Connection No.5957 under an agreement with the respondents. When the respondents issued a notice in the name of provisional assessment calling upon the petitioner to pay shortfall amount on account of alleged excess connected load, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5713 of 2010. This Court disposed of the said writ petition, by order dated 12.03.2010, wherein this Court observed that after receiving the said provisional assessment notice and show cause notice dated 11.01.2010 calling upon the petitioner to regularise the additional load, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 27.02.2010 and that propriety and fairness require that before issuing the demand for payment of charges for the alleged excess load stated to have been connected by the petitioner, the respondents shall consider the explanation of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order. The petitioner pleaded that the said order was acknowledged by the Office of respondent No.3 on 09.04.2010 and he has filed a copy of the acknowledgement in the writ petition. However, a day prior to receipt of the said order, respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings bearing No.DEE/O/NDD/AE.Comml./BB.No.01/D.No.439/10 dated 08.04.2010 whereunder a final order has been passed calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.2,17,076/-. In the said order, it is stated that through letter dated 08.02.2010 while provisionally assessing the shortfall amount, respondent No.3 called for objections. However, there is no reference to the fact whether the objections filed by the petitioner have been considered or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the order passed by this Court was acknowledged by respondent No.3 a day after passing of the impugned order, he would not have been aware of the direction given by this Court to consider the petitioner’s objections. Whatever may be the reason, the fact remains that objections dated 27.02.2010 submitted by the petitioner have not been referred to in the impugned order passed by respondent No.3. It is the fundamental principle of law that before passing a final order, the party, who is likely to be affected by such an order, is entitled to a notice and an opportunity of being heard. As respondent No.3 failed to follow this procedure, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and accordingly the same is set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider explanation/objections dated 27.02.2010 filed by the petitioner, which is stated to have been received on 03.03.2010, and pass a fresh order thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 28th April, 2010 vrn