IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE. PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8399 of 2009 Between: M/s Sri.Mahalaxmi Rice Mill, Rep by its proprietor M.Ratna Kumari, Sri. Vema Guravaiah Lease holder, Singavaram Village, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Rep by its Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Eluru, W.G.District. 2 The Divisional Electrical, Engineer, Operation, Eluru, W.G.District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SREE RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside notice of demand dated 24- 11-2008 issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Eluru of respondent No.1- Company. Heard Sri S.Rama Chandra Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. By the impugned notice, the petitioner, which is a consumer of respondent No.1, is called upon to submit its explanation within fifteen days from the date of service of notice as to why a sum of Rs.45,831/- shall not be recovered from it. From a perusal of the said impugned notice, it is quite evident that there is inherent contradiction in the stand taken by respondent No.1- Company. Paragraph 2 of the impugned notice indicates that the petitioner connected an additional load aggregating to a total of 86 HP + 2 KW, which is in excess of 75 HP and hence, billing was proposed treating the petitioner as a HT consumer. But in the immediate next paragraph, i.e., Paragraph No.3, it is stated that the meter installed in the petitioner’s premises is not functioning correctly and therefore, short billing is being done. At the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that there is defect in the impugned notice. According to him, the proposed recovery was towards the differential tariff by treating the petitioner as a HT consumer. In view of the same, I am of the view that the impugned notice itself is defective and the respondents have mixed up excess load with the alleged meter defect. Therefore, the impugned notice, which cannot be sustained in law, is set aside. Liberty is given to the respondents to issue a fresh notice by giving the precise details for the proposed assessment by following the procedure under the terms and conditions of supply. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 1st June, 2009 AMD/LUR