THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. Nos. 11422 and 11423 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: In these two writ petitions, common questions of law and fact arise for consideration, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. It appears, petitioners in these writ petitions are running separate industries of different process, involved in cotton ginning mills and oil mills. Each Unit is held by different partners under a registered partnership deed and they are carrying different processes, may be, one is involved in ginning i.e. separating seed from cotton and the other one is extracting oil from seeds. But, they have different service connections and they have different processes involved. Learned counsel for the petitioner also says that the sales tax registration and other registrations as required under various law processes are different. However, respondents are treating different industries located within one premises as one unit and clubbing the units of the electricity consumed by all the industries as one and charging higher slab rate; if they are separately charged, lower slab rate is applicable. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that this is contrary to Clause 27 of the terms and conditions of supply. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since all the industries are located within one premises, the respondents have right to club all of them and charge a higher rate as per the slab system and whether the industries are held by different partnership deeds or not has no relevance. Once they are located within one premises, they can club all the units consumed by all the Industrial Units together and then charge higher rate applicable. This approach made by respondents appears to be most unreasonable. Once the partnership deed is separate and the industrial process is also different, simply because they are located within one premises, respondents should not have clubbed the units of energy consumed by all the Units and charged a higher rate. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Such a question had fallen for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1254 of 2004 dated 1.9.2004 and, I am of the considered opinion that the issues that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are squarely covered by the said order passed in writ appeal. Therefore, these writ petitions are liable to be disposed of in the light of the order passed in W.A. No. 1254 of 2004 dated 1.9.2004. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in W.P. No. 11423 of 2006 there was no inspection conducted by higher authority and there is no finding in his favour and, therefore, the said writ petition needs to be remanded for re-consideration. I am of the opinion that such a course need not be adopted since the issue is squarely covered by the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1254 of 2004 dated 1.9.2004. Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed directing the respondents to issue revised bills under L.T. Scheme for the respective consumer service numbers of the petitioners for the relevant period and adjust the excess payment made by them in the future bills. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 27-9-2010. MVB.