IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26925 of 2003 Between: M/s. Vasuki Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by G. Brahmanand, G.P.A Holder of Managing Director Mr. Ramana Babu, R/o. Plot No.17/C, I.D.A., Phase-I, Patancheru, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And 1. The Superintendent Engineer, APCPDCL, Operation Circle, Medak Headquarters, Sangareddy. 2. The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Operation Circle, Sangareddy. 3. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Medak Headquarter, Sangareddy. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. S. Satyanaraya Counsel for the respondents: Mr. O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not replacing the defective meter with a new one and also in issuing bills contrary to the terms and conditions of supply framed under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 as illegal and arbitrary. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the defective meter is concerned, the same has been replaced and therefore the only issue that remains for consideration is as to the bills dated 01-11-2003 and 01-12-2003 which are issued contrary to the terms and conditions of supply. Copies of the bills in question are filed along with the material papers. In the bill dated 01-11-2003, power factor is shown as 0.28, whereas in the bill dated 01-12-2003, power factor is shown as 0.34. It is to be seen that as per condition No.23 of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity framed under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the power factor of the consumer shall not be less than 0.85. As per the said condition, if the power factor falls less than 0.85 during any month, the consumer shall pay a surcharge of two per cent on the amount of that month’s bill (excluding demand charges and customer charges) for each 0.01 (decimal naught one) fall in the power factor. The said condition further states that if the power factor is less than 0.85 continuously for a period of six months, the consumer shall pay surcharge at the rate of three per cent on the bill amounts. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the bill dated 01-11-2003, low power factor surcharge is shown as Rs.75,040-61 and Rs.1,52,730-04 in the bill dated 01-12- 2003. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that even if surcharge is to be collected, as per condition No.23 of the terms and conditions of supply, the same should not be more than Rs.52,784/- in the bill dated 01- 11-2003 and Rs.1,08,099/- in the bill dated 01-12-2003 and in spite of the fact that the petitioner has made representation to the respondents in this regard, no action has been taken and hence the present writ petition is filed. Though the writ petition is of the year 2003, so far, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. Whether the bills issued to the petitioner with regard to low power factor surcharge are correct or not and whether the same are in accordance with condition No.23 of the terms and conditions of supply is a matter, which is in the domain of the respondents and it is not possible for this court to examine the same in the absence of any counter affidavit. In view of the allegation of the petitioner that in spite of representation made in this regard, no action has been taken by the respondents and further in the absence of any counter affidavit, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to submit a representation afresh to the third respondent with regard to imposition of excess low power factor surcharge in the bills dated 01-11-2003 and 01-12-2003 within a period of two weeks from today. If any such representation is filed along with supporting calculation memos, the third respondent shall examine the same and communicate the decision taken in this regard to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of filing representation by the petitioner. It is needless to observe that any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to interim orders will be subject to the order to be passed by the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. October 7, 2009 N.B. Copy in three days B.O. MRR