The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.24075 of 2011 Date: 30-11-2011 Between: M/s.Mahalakshmi Saw Mills, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Y.Saibabu ..... Petitioner AND The Superintending Engineer, Eastern Power Distribution of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Rajahmundry, East Godavari District and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.Lakshmikanth Counsel for the Respondents: Smt.G.Jyothi Eswar, SC for APEPDCL The Court made the following : Order: The petitioner, which is a saw mill, is a Low Tension Industrial consumer of the respondents. On 26- 12-2008, respondent No.4 has issued the demand for Rs.1,37,219-55 ps representing the purported shortfall in the demand charges. The petitioner has made a representation on 02-01-2009 denying its liability. Evidently, no further action was taken on the said demand. However, another demand was made to the same eﬀect by respondent No.4 on 06-05-2011. The basis for raising the said demand is that, even though the petitioner’s contracted demand is 25.97 KVA, for the months of April, 2007 to April, 2008, its recorded maximum demand is 80.1 KVA. At the hearing, it has come out that the bills issued by the respondents showed 80.1 KVA as the recorded maximum demand. However, it is the case of the respondents that the excess demand charges have not been included in the bills. No prior notice has been issued to the petitioner before raising demands on both the occasions. Since there is a serious dispute regarding the impugned demands between the petitioner on one side and the respondents on the other, it is appropriate that the petitioner makes a representation before the Grievance Reddressal Forum (for short ‘the Forum’) constituted by respondent No.1 under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Such a representation shall be made by it within a period of one month from today. On such representation being received, the Forum shall examine and adjudicate the same. If the petitioner makes a representation as mentioned above within the stipulated time, the respondents shall not disconnect the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection till the Forum adjudicates the dispute. One-fourth of the demanded amount, deposited by the petitioner as per this Court’s interim direction, dated 26-08-2011, shall be adjusted depending upon the decision taken by the Forum. However, if the petitioner fails to make the representation within the stipulated time, the respondents shall be free to enforce the impugned demand. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel, WPMP.No.29517 of 2011, ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 30th November, 2011 LUR