HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.30181 of 2011 Date : 20-12-2011 Between: M/s. Choudhary Sugars, Dharmareddy village, Nagareddypet Mandal, Nizamabad District, represented by its Proprietrix Shobha Chowdhary .. Petitioner And The Northern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Warangal, Warangal District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Duba V. Nagarjuna Babu Counsel for respondents : Sri S.V. Ramana for Sri O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside letter No.SE/OP/NZB/SAO/JAO/HT/D.No.975/2010, dated 27-1-2011 of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.V. Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner is running Khandasari sugar mill and is a H.T. consumer of the respondents with service connection No.NZB/068 for a Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) of 200 KVA. Being a Khandasari unit, the petitioner is classified under seasonal industry which is liable to pay minimum charges of 30% of the CMD during off-season. On the basis of audit enquiry, a notice was issued by respondent No.3 on 22-1-2010 wherein it as pointed out that as the petitioner was using power for its main plant even during the off-season period, a report was called for from respondent No.5 and that such a report was not received and the petitioner was asked to pay a sum of Rs.8,42,550/- for operating during the off-season period from June 2006 to November 2006; April 2007 to November 2007; April 2008; September 2008 to November 2008 and April 2009 to October 2009. In response to the said notice the petitioner made a representation on 18-2-2010. On considering the said representation, respondent No.3 has issued letter No. SE/OP/NZB/SAO/JAO/HT/D.No.378/10 dated 9-8-2010. A perusal of this proceeding shows that after respondent No.3 issued notice dated 22-1-2010, respondent No.5, submitted his report dated 26-6-2010 wherein it is mentioned that during the off-season period from July 2009 to November 2009, the petitioner has availed electricity for making jaggery from molasses by running 10 H.P motor for pumping drinking water apart from using electricity for main plant maintenance and repair works. After receiving clarification from the Corporate office/Warangal, respondent No.3 held that the off-season period during the above mentioned years will be treated as seasonal period and the short fall amount was calculated at Rs.11,77,632/-. The petitioner was called upon to pay the said amount within 15 days. As the said payment was not made, the supply was disconnected in August 2010. It is stated in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter-affidavit that the agreement was terminated on 20-3-2011 and proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 were initiated for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,13,195/-. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client has not used the power for running the main plant during the off-season period and that respondent No.3 has committed a serious procedural illegality in placing reliance on the report dated 26-2-2010 of respondent No.5, without supplying a copy thereof to the petitioner. The fact that respondent No.3 has not supplied a copy of the report dated 26-2-2010 of respondent No.5 is not in dispute. It is the settled principle of administrative law that no material shall be relied upon without supplying such material to a party, before passing an order adverse to the interests of the party. In the instant case, respondent No.3 has placed reliance on the report of respondent No.5, without giving the petitioner an opportunity of contradicting the said report. On this short ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, order dated 9-8- 2010 of respondent No.3 is set-aside. As regards proceedings dated 27-1-2011, which is also questioned in the Writ Petition, respondent No.2 has called upon the petitioner to pay the short fall amount of Rs.16,67,063/-, failing which it was stated that the agreement will be terminated. As noted above, it is specifically stated in the counter-affidavit that the agreement was terminated on 20-3-2011. Therefore, the relief prayed in the Writ Petition to the extent of proceedings dated 27-1- 2011 has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the impugned order is set-aside, the petitioner’s unit is entitled for restoration of the power supply. In the counter- affidavit it is specifically stated that since the agreement has already been terminated, the petitioner is not entitled for resumption of power supply till the agreement is revived. The petitioner’s entitlement for revival of the agreement depends upon the outcome of the decision to be taken by respondent No.3 afresh. I am therefore of the opinion that no direction for restoration of power supply to the petitioner’s unit can be issued at this stage. Respondent No.3 is directed to supply a copy of the report dated 26-2-2010 of respondent No.5 to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to file a further representation with reference to the said report within two weeks thereafter. Within one month from the date of supply of a copy of the report of respondent No.5 to the petitioner, respondent No.3 shall consider the further representation, if any made by the petitioner and pass a fresh order. The revival of the agreement and restoration of power supply shall depend upon the decision to be taken by respondent No.3. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP No.37395/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 20-12-2011 AM