THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1488 of 2011 Dated 29th January, 2011 Between: M/s.Sri Sai Manikanta Rice Industries …Petitioner And Assistant Divisional Engineer, Construction and Operation, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Krishnam Raju For Sri Kamatham Goverdhan Reddy Counsel for respondents: Smt.Jyothi Eswar Gogineni The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Letter No.ADE/C&O/AMV/F.Dkt./D.No.634/2010, dated 16.06.2010, of respondent No.1, whereby he has assessed the amount of back billing in respect of service connection No.280/Category- III/Gurandi’B (Village), Bhamini (Section), of Srikakulam District. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, and perused the record. The petitioner is a consumer of electricity supplied by the respondents. The petitioner’s service connection is classified under LT-III Category. The service connection was inspected by ADE/DPE, Srikakulam on 09.03.2010. On the basis of the said inspection, respondent No.1 issued the impugned proceedings, wherein it is stated that as against the contracted load of 74 Hp, the service has registered maximum demand of 94.4. KVA on 22.01.2010 and that the service is constantly recording the maximum demand above 70 KVA, which is beyond the limit of LT-IIIA Category. On this premise, an assessment was made for back billing of the excess demand said to have been availed by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not issued any prior notice before assessment was made for back billing of the excess demand said to have been availed by it. A perusal of the impugned proceedings, which is styled as assessment notice, does not indicate that any such notice was given to the petitioner. In M/s.Ravi Teja Modern Rice Mill v. the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations and another (W.P.Nos.1037, 1045 & 1083 of 2009), this Court dealt with the cases where the licencee has unilaterally concluded that the consumers have exceeded the maximum demand limit and called upon them to regularise the additional load by paying the development charges. While disposing of the said writ petitions, this Court held as under: “Though, literally construed, Condition No.12.3.3 does not envisage a prior opportunity, in my considered opinion, the said condition is required to be read down to the effect that if the respondents come to the conclusion that the consumer has connected additional load, a notice to that effect is to be given, along with all the relevant material to show that the consumer has exceeded the contracted load, and objections be invited. After considering the objections, if any, filed by the consumer, the respondents shall have to determine the issue regarding the factum of connection of additional load. Interpreting this Condition in any other manner would only lead to arbitrariness and unilateral adjudication of the dispute by the licensee. In this view of the matter, as, admittedly, the impugned demands are not preceded by notice and an opportunity of filing objections by the petitioners, they are quashed. The respondents are given liberty to initiate action afresh after following the procedure referred to above.” In view of the principle laid down in the above batch of cases, which squarely applies to the present case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the parties to treat the impugned proceedings as a notice and permit the petitioner to submit objections, within a period of two weeks. On receipt of such objections, if any, respondent No.1 shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order. Till such order is passed, power supply to the petitioner service connection shall not be disconnected only on account of non-payment of the amount assessed under the impugned proceedings. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.1816 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th January, 2011 VGB