IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11028 of 2003 Between: Cheela Lakshmipathi … Petitioner And A.P. TRANSCO rep., by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director at Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S. Sudeep Reddy for Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri P. Chakravarthy for Sri O. Manohar Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11028 of 2003 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside demand notice dated 07.05.2003 issued by respondent No.6. The petitioner is a consumer of the respondents. The officials of the respondents inspected his service on 19.05.1992 and issued proceedings dated 09.06.1992 to the effect that the meter was running in reverse direction in one phase and accordingly issued a demand notice towards back billing for a sum of Rs.45,103/-. Questioning the said proceedings, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.13691 of 1995. This Court allowed the said writ petition by holding that as the allegation on which the back billing was done was that the meter was defective, the respondents had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute and that it is the Chief Electrical Inspector who should decide the dispute under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Accordingly, this Court left it open to the respondents to refer the dispute regarding the back billing at its option to the Chief Electrical Inspector within a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, evidently, the said dispute was not referred, as directed by this Court. However, by proceedings dated 07.05.2003, respondent No.6 called upon the petitioner to pay the abovementioned sum of Rs.45,103/- towards back billing in connection with Writ Petition No.13691 of 1995. On 31.12.2009 and 02.02.2010, the case was adjourned at the request of the respondents’ counsel. However, no counter affidavit has been filed. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that this Court declared that the demand of Rs.45,103/- was not proper and legal, unless the issue is decided by the Chief Electrical Inspector. In spite of the liberty being given to the respondents for reference, the dispute was not referred. After a lapse of nearly 1½ years, the impugned demand was made. In my opinion, the impugned demand was wholly illegal and contrary to the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.13691 of 1995. Until such time, as the Chief Electrical Inspector decides the dispute, it is not permissible for the respondents to make any demand towards the alleged back billing. Obviously, no reference has been made to the Chief Electrical Inspector so far and the time stipulated for such reference by this Court has expired long back. For the abovementioned reasons, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.13780 of 2003 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.02.2010 ES