HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No. 18106 of 2004 DATE: 11-02-2008 Between: Rajarajeswara Par Boiled Rice Industries & Exports Ltd., ……………… Petitioner and 1. Superintending Engineer, CPDCL, Operation Circle, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. A.P. and others. ………….. Respondents HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No. 18106 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 23-08- 2004 finalizing the consumption charges on the defective meter and the previous orders of the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of the natural justice. The petitioner is a HT consumer and he was paying regular consumption charges. He was availing CMD of 252 KVA. While he was paying regular charges, the meter was changed on 16-06-2001 and that meter was found to be defective as it was recording excess reading. The Assistant Divisional Engineer reported that the meter was recording higher readings and the same was intimated to the Divisional Engineer. The meter service was tested in the presence of consumer on 18-02-2002. During the inspection, the consumer’s load was not available. The meter was tested on phanton load and it was found that the meter was recording 34.39% KWH more than the normal reading. The defective meter was replaced and the back billing was issued to the petitioner directing him to pay Rs.5,14,891/-. The petitioner is contending that the reading of the meter is much more than the normal reading and as the meter was fixed in June, 2001, the amount has to be reduced from June, 2001 and as the respondents reduced the amount only for the bills of January and February, 2002, the impugned order is liable to be set aside directing the first respondent to calculate the reduction of the amount from June, 2001. In the order, dated 23-08-2004, the second respondent considered all the aspects and the recordings of the meter from June, 2001. He noticed that there was excess reading from October, 2001 and in pursuance of that, the bills were revised by reducing the readings to an extent of 34.39% KWH and accordingly, the amounts were reduced. After going through the impugned order, I am convinced that the second respondent rightly considered the period during which there was excess recording from January, 2001. I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in calculating the amount for the purpose of reduction in the consumption charges. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ DR. G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date:11-02-2008 YCR