IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14208 of 2010 Between: K. Prem Kumar ... PETITIONER a n d The Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited, Nalgonda district at Nalgonda and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by K. Prem Kumar with a prayer to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Divisional Engineer (Electrical) Operation, A.P., Central Power Distribution Company Limited, Miryalguda of Nalgond district - second respondent in issuing the notice dated 08-06-2010 calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.3,14,555/- within three (3) days as illegal and arbitrary. 2. This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court. The petitioner filed W.P.No.19284 of 2003 assailing the proceedings issued by the second respondent. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 12-07-2004. The relevant portion of the order passed in the said writ petition reads as hereunder: “Admittedly the petitioner has filed an appeal against the order dated 5-6-2003 of the first respondent and the same is still pending before the appellate authority, which has granted permission for the petitioner to pay the amount demanded, in two monthly instalments. However, this court has granted interim direction of the demand on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.35,000/- within two weeks. In view of the fact that the appeal is pending, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay half of the demanded amount within a period of four weeks from today and if any amount already paid it may be given credit to. On such payment, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps to disconnect the power supply of the petitioner. The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal itself on merits, after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner. No costs.” 3. Since the petitioner failed to comply the payment of 50% of the assessed shortfall, the second respondent issued present proceedings on 08-06-2010 directing him to pay necessary shortfall amount of Rs.3,14,555/- in addition to the applicable additional charges as on the date of payment. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APCPDCL takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not pay the 50% of the assessed amount on the misconception that the total amount demanded by the authorities was Rs.78,650/-. I have gone through the material brought on record. There is no scope for such misconception by the petitioner that the total amount demanded by the third respondent was Rs.78,650/-. It is evident as per the proceedings dated 05-06-2003 issued by the Divisional Engineer Electrical, Operation, APCPDCL, Miryalguda – second respondent that the petitioner was required to pay Rs.3,14,555/-. Indeed a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner demanding him to pay the said mount. The petitioner did not choose to submit an explanation to the show cause notice. 7. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner failed to make out any valid ground to interfere with the proceeding dated 08-06-2010 issued by the second respondent. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J June 22, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14208 of 2010 June 22, 2010