IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 1497 of 2009 Between: M/s. Deepak Packers & Movers Rep. by its General Manager, P.V. Babu, Office Situated at Plot No. 249, Road No. 18, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited Rep. by its Managing Director Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Asst. Engineer APCPDCL., Electricity Bill Operation Back Side of Peddamma Temple, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not referring the matter for proper adjudication to the Electrical Inspector as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to refer the dispute of the petitioner to the Electrical Inspector for proper adjudication of the issue in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APEPDCL) The Court made the following : Order: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the action of the respondents in not referring the meter of the petitioner for proper verification to the Electrical Inspector. The case of the petitioner is that it is the tenant of the property bearing Plot No.249 situated at Road No.18, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. It is its case that in the month of January, 2008 the respondent authorities replaced the existing electricity meter and installed a digital meter in the premises. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier he used to receive the bills for around Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month but after installation of the digital meter, he started receiving the bills for around Rs.14,000/- to Rs.18,000/-.Therefore, he issued a legal notice and also deposited the checking charges for the meter. Thereafter, a report was furnished to him on 28.4.2008 indicating that there is no significant variation in the bill. Therefore, he again approached the authorities to refer his case to the Chief Electrical Inspector. Since no action has been taken, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that since the representation of the petitioner to refer his case to the Chief Electrical Inspector is still pending, the authorities may be directed to consider the said representation and refer the meter as requested by the petitioner to the concerned authorities. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent – Assistant Engineer, APCPDCL, Electricity Bill Operation is directed to send the meter of the petitioner for verification to the concerned laboratory in order to ascertain whether the meter is functioning properly. In case if it is found that there is any defect in the meter, the 2nd respondent shall rectify the same. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.2.2.2009 msv