IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 534 of 2003 Between: M./s. Sree Maheshwara Industries, (Nandini Oil Mill) Kothapalli, Service connection No. 1162, Rep. by its Proprietor, E.Krishna Murthy, S/o.Basavaiah, aged about 52 years, R/o Mulugu, Ghanapur (Vill &Mandal), Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, Northern Power Distribution Co., of A.P. Ltd., Warangal. 2 The Asst. Accounts Officer, G.R.C., N.P.D.C.L., Warangal. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Operation, N.P.D.C.L., Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to collect the Minimum Charges from the Petitioner Rice Mill vide S.C. No. 1162 Cat. III for the period during which the power supply was disconnected i.e. from 12-6-2002 to 24-12-2002 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provision of the revise terms and conditions of power supply vide B.P.Ms. No. 690 dt 17-9-1975. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents : O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER:- In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, in seeking to collect the minimum charges from the petitioner - rice mill for service connection bearing No.1162, Category- III, for the period from 12-6-2002 to 24-12-2002 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner was provided with electricity service connection vide S.C.No.1162. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been using the electricity through the said service connection by paying consumption charges regularly without any default. The respondents have disconnected the power supply on 12-6-2002 on the instructions given by the Joint Collector. The said instructions were issued by the Joint Collector on the allegation that the petitioner was purchasing rice, which is meant for food for work scheme and on the said allegations, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Based on the instructions issued by the Joint Collector, electricity supply to the petitioner was disconnected on 12-6-2002, and the petitioner questioned the same by way of W.P.No.24737 of 2002. This Court by Judgment dated 22-08-2007, allowed the W.P.No.24737 of 2002 and granted directions for restoration of power supply and in view of the interim orders passed in the Writ Petition No.24737 of 2002, power supply was restored on 24-12- 2002. After restoration of the power supply, respondents have demanded for payment of minimum consumption charges for the period for which electricity service was disconnected i.e., from 12-6-2002 to 24-12-2002 and permitted the petitioner to pay said arrears in two instalments. It is stated that the petitioner has already paid first instalment and before second instalment amount is payable, he filed the present Writ Petition challenging the demand made by the respondents for payment of minimum consumption charges. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that as he was not defaulted in paying the consumption charges and as the instructions issued by the Joint Collector are illegal, no minimum charges can be collected from the petitioner. It is submitted that there is no valid reason for such disconnection, as such, respondents are not entitled to collect minimum consumption charges as per the terms and conditions of supply framed under Electricity Supply Act, 1948. 4. No counter affidavit is filed in the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. 6. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as much as power supply was disconnected on 12-6-2002, without any valid reason, petitioner is not liable to pay any minimum consumption charges for the period of disconnection i.e., from 12-6-2002 to 24-12-2002. It is submitted that the power supply was disconnected even without issuing prior notice and opportunity and the same was restored in view of the interim directions issued in W.P.No.24737 of 2002 with effect from 24-12-2002. It is also submitted that subsequently Writ Petition itself is allowed, as such, the petitioner is not liable to pay any minimum consumption charges for the period of disconnection. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri O.Manohar Reddy, the learned standing counsel for the respondents, that the service provided to the petitioner is as per the terms and conditions of supply framed under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 framed under B.P. Ms.No.690, dated 17-09-1975 and as per the conditions, the petitioner is liable to pay the minimum charges though power was disconnected from 12-6-2002 to 24-12-2002. The learned counsel placed reliance on the condition No.33.2 of the terms and conditions of supply stating that the petitioner/consumer is liable to pay electricity charges, as the same was disconnected in view of the malpractices committed by him. Reference is also made to condition No.42.2 of the terms and conditions of supply stating that the disconnection of power supply is in accordance with the instructions from the competent authority as contemplated under Condition No.42.2. 8. In this Writ Petition, it is not in dispute that disconnection is taken place only on account of instructions issued by the Joint Collector. The liability for payment of minimum charges is contemplated under condition No.33 of the terms and conditions of supply. Condition No.33.2 provides that the consumer is liable to pay minimum charges even after the service is disconnected for non-payment of electricity charges, pilferage, other malpractices, or for any other valid reason. So far as condition No.42.2 is concerned, it operates only in the event where the consumer requires a license/permission from any statutory authority or any authority of the government to run the business/industry and if such permission/license is not obtained, the Superintendent Engineer of the Board may, if desired by the concerned statutory or any competent authority of the government, disconnect the power supply after giving notice calling for explanation from the consumer. 9. In this case, though counter affidavit is not filed, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents that the instructions for disconnection were issued not on the ground that petitioner was doing business without obtaining any licence/permission, but it is alleged that he has purchased some rice, which is meant for supply under food for work scheme. As much as there is no allegation of doing business by the petitioner without obtaining license or permission, the condition No.42.2 has no application. Even with reference to condition No.33.2, minimum charges are payable only in the cases where supply is disconnected for non-payment of electric charges, pilferage and other malpractices committed by the petitioner. Though it is submitted by the learned standing counsel that petitioner indulged in malpractice, there is no finding for such malpractice by any competent authority. On the mere allegation that petitioner has indulged in purchase of some rice, which was meant for distribution under food for work scheme, the instructions were issued even before a finding is recorded by the competent authority. On mere allegation, in the absence of any finding by the competent authority with regard to violation of any provision of the control order, framed under Essential Commodities Act, the instructions issued by the Joint Collector cannot be construed as a valid reason for disconnection of power supply. In this case, it is also to be noted that, on instructions, the power supply was disconnected even without notifying and giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Though it is argued by the learned standing counsel for the respondents that first instalment is already paid, but that itself is no ground to reject the claim of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay minimum consumption charges for the period of disconnection i.e., from 12-6-2002 to 24-12-2002. Even from a reading of the condition numbers 33.2 and 42.2, as the disconnection is without any valid reason, the petitioner is not at all liable to pay the minimum consumption charges for the period of disconnection i.e., from 12-6- 2002 to 24-12-2002. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring the action of respondents, in seeking to collect minimum consumption charges from the petitioner on it’s service connection bearing No.1162 for the period from 12- 6-2002 to 24-12-2002, as illegal. Consequently, respondents are directed to adjust the amounts collected from the petitioner, on account of minimum consumption charges by way of first instalment, in the future consumption charges of the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with directions as referred to above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 04th June, 2009 AMD/SKMR