THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.867 of 2005 ORDER: Petitioner-Steel Authority of India is a Government of India undertaking company. It has a ware house at Patan Cheruvu, Medak District, for which it sought HT connection. According to the petitioner, without giving connection and having necessary lines laid, UCM charges of Rs.3,45,130/- were imposed on it and that it was forced to pay the demanded amount. Later on, it made an appeal to the Chief Engineer (Commercial), A.P.S.E.B., who, after detailed consideration of the matter, allowed the appeal and the demanded UCM charges were cancelled and also electricity connection was released in favour of the petitioner. However, after a lapse of 7 to 8 years, again the said amount of Rs.3,45,130/-, which was demanded earlier and cancelled in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, was demanded separately in the HT Tariff Bill of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, without completing the HT line works and without erecting the CT/PT and metering units, a notice was served on it, stating that all HT line works were over on 04.04.1994, which was incorrect, and therefore, vide its letter dated 22.09.2004, it sought for waiver of UCM charges. In response thereto, the Member Secretary issued Memo dated 09.10.1994, wherein approval for releasing the service was given pending decision on payment of UCM charges. However, the 3rd respondent issued letter dated 20/22.01.1997, demanding the petitioner to pay UCM charges from 05.07.1994 to 05.11.1994 and balance from the month of December, 1996 to 06.01.1996, totaling to Rs.3,45,130/-. Thereupon, the petitioner gave a reply on 24.03.1997 stating that HT line works were completed only in the last week of October, 1994 and also sought clarification about the demand of arrears amounting to Rs.16,337/-, for the period from December, 1996 to 06.01.1996. In this regard, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer (Commercial) on 30.03.1998, which was followed by its letter dated 04.10.2004, but the 2nd respondent, under the impugned letter dated 27.12.2004, refused to waive the UCM charges of Rs.3,28,793/- and this was followed by letter dated 10.01.2005 of the 4th respondent, calling upon the petitioner to pay the UCM charges of Rs.3,28,793/- and arrears of Rs.74,635/- within seven days. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal to the 1st respondent and the same is pending. According to the petitioner, the impugned demand made by the respondents is arbitrary and illegal and no demand could have been made under Section 24 of the Electricity Act, unless the Inspector gives a final decision on the disputed amount. Hence, this writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was levied unconnected minimum charges (UCM) charges on expiry of three months notice under clause 26.4 of terms and conditions of supply. It is also stated that vide letter dated 05.05.1994, the petitioner was served three months notice on completion of Board side works, for availing supply within a period of three months from the date of issue of the notice, and subsequently, issued another letter dated 16.0.1994, requesting the petitioner to avail supply before 04.07.1994 and to obtain the CEIG approval for the electrical installation as per Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, failing which the UCM charges will be collected from 05.0.1994 onwards, and the same was acknowledged by the petitioner Company by putting its seal as a token of receipt. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Transco appearing for the respondents. According to the petitioner, the sub-station erected by it was supplied with energy with effect from 11.11.1994 and, therefore, it is not liable to pay the demanded amount, as it covers the period prior to 11.11.1994. Even otherwise, as per clause 26.4 of the terms and conditions of supply, the consumer shall avail the power supply within a period of three months from the date of issue of the notice. In the case on hand, three months notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.05.1994, as stated by the respondents, and that three months would expire on 04.08.1994 and therefore, at the most, the petitioner would be liable to pay UCM charges with effect from August, 1994, and not prior to that period, as per the said clause 26.4 of the terms and conditions of supply. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner, after putting the petitioner on notice, and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 26.11.2010 v v