IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13586 of 2004 Between: Sunder Steels Ltd., Hyderabad. … Petitioner And Central Power Distribution Co., of A.P., Ltd., Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.P. Chandramouli Counsel for the respondents: Sri O. Manohar Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13586 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in levying minimum charges for the months of August 2001 to November 2001 and in not granting 25% rebate on the CC bills for the months of April 2001 to July 2001, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri M.P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The petitioner is a consumer of the respondents. It is running a steel re-rolling mill. According to the petitioner, on account of recession in steel market, it approached A.P. Transco to which respondent No.1 has succeeded, in the year 2001 for reduction of electrical charges, that on assurance given by the A.P. Transco that the petitioner will be given 25% rebate on the CC bills, if it takes power supply exclusively from the A.P. Transco, the petitioner has discontinued the other sources and started receiving power supply exclusively from A.P. Transco in the month of April 2001 and that without giving 25% rebate, the bills were being issued by the A.P. Transco. As the petitioner failed to pay the electricity charges, as accumulated to a tune of Rs.2,84,86,343/-, the power supply was disconnected in the month of August 2001. In the year 2004, the petitioner approached the respondents for re-connection of the power supply by expressing his willingness to pay Rs.66,42,742/- mentioned as due in their letter dated 01.04.2002 in 12 equal monthly instalments. In response to the said request, respondent No.1 addressed letter dated 11.06.2004, whereby it has permitted the petitioner to pay the arrears of CC charges of Rs.1,53,14,694/- and the minimum charges of Rs.21,25,936/- in 7 instalments. Feeling aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri M.P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was under the impression that it is entitled to rebate of 25% while it has subsequently learnt from the respondents that what was offered to it was only incentive for maintaining higher load factor and that as it was in arrears of payment of electricity charges, the said incentive was not payable. He further submitted that as regards the waiver of minimum charges, G.O.Ms.No.359, dated 25.06.2001 under which the State Government has evolved a scheme for rehabilitation of small scale industries, which have become sick, the petitioner is required to approach the committee constituted for this purpose for sanctioning rehabilitation measures. The learned counsel has fairly conceded that the petitioner has not approached the committee in this regard. In my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed by it on both counts. With respect to the incentive payable for higher load factor, it is not in dispute that such incentive is not available to the consumers, who are in arrears of electricity. Admittedly, the petitioner was in arrears of electricity. Therefore, it is not entitled to such incentive. As regards the claim for waiver of minimum charges, as per the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.359, dated 25.06.2001 any sick, non-BIFR/SSI unit has to approach the special cell for incentives. On such application being made, the special cell, constituted under the said G.O., will examine the feasibility of granting reliefs and incentives. Therefore, unless the petitioner approaches the special cell under the said G.O., no benefit can be given to it. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to pay the arrears within a period of three months from today. The petitioner is also not precluded from approaching the competent authority under G.O.Ms.No.359 dated 25.06.2001 for grant of reliefs and incentives. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.07.2010 ES