THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.10653 of 2005 Dated: 20.10.2010 Between: Jalakam Sampath Kumar. .. Petitioner. And The Assistant Divisional Engineer, And another. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following substantive relief:- “…Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned letter No. ADE/OP/D-X/C- VIII/F.Court Case/D.No.1291/04 Dt.27-12-04 as illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the orders of this Hon’ble High Court dated 28-12-1999 in W.P.No.26519/1999 and consequently direct the respondents to test the replaced meter and further to delete the amounts added to the disputed amount as on 28-12-1999 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” It appears, the house bearing No.17-1-391/5/504 situated on Plot No.504, Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad, belonging to the petitioner, was provided with electricity service connection bearing No.P318758. According to the petitioner, as the electricity meter fixed to his house was functioning erratically from the month of August, 1997, he lodged several complaints to the authorities concerned, but unfortunately the respondents issued bills for an amount of Rs.16,000/- , and therefore, he filed W.P.No.26519 of 1999, questioning the action of the authorities in not conducting enquiry as contemplated under Condition No.22.3.3.3 of the terms and conditions of supply and in not reviewing his bills for the period of dispute relating to the functioning of the meter, from August, 1997 to July, 1998 and August, 1998 to March, 1999, that is to say the dates on which the meter was replaced. The said writ petition was disposed of on 28.12.1999, directing the respondents not to insist the petitioner to pay the amounts in demand and to restore the power supply to the petitioner’s Service Connection, however the respondents were given liberty to fix proper liability upon the petitioner and demand appropriate amounts from the petitioner after issuing a show cause notice and after making an enquiry in accordance with law. The petitioner states that pursuant to disposal of the said W.P.No.26519 of 1999, he made representations to the authorities, requesting them to change his meter that was replaced and paid prescribed fee, for testing of meter, and also to enquire into the matter properly in the light of the orders passed in the said W.P.No.26519 of 1999, but after several correspondence between him and the respondent authorities in that regard, the 1st respondent issued a letter dated 06.12.2004, requesting the petitioner to contact his office along with relevant documents on or before 15.12.2004, treating the same as a show cause notice for initiating further necessary action by the competent authority with regard to an early settlement of his dispute. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted his reply on 15.12.2004 to the 1st respondent, to enquire into the matter properly and to delete the disputed excess amount, but surprisingly the 1st respondent issued impugned letter dated 27.12.2004, directing to treat the same as notice and to pay the balance of dues pertaining to the department. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Admittedly, the impugned letter/notice does not indicate the exact amount payable by the petitioner. That apart, in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned letter/notice dated 27.12.2004 addressed by the 1st respondent, it is stated as under: “if you are not satisfied with the above orders, you may contact the DE/OP/C-VIII/Asmangadh after paying 50% of due amount within 15 days please” Since the impugned letter/notice does not specify the amount to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent department, on this ground alone the impugned letter/notice is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned letter/notice dated 27.12.2004 addressed by the 1st respondent and directing the respondents to issue fresh notice, if any advised, calculating the amount due by the petitioner along with interest and penalty, if any as on the date of impugned letter/notice. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 20.10.2010 v v