HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No. 8016 of 2008 Date: 26-10-2010 Between: M/s Balaji Radha Theatre ……….. Petitioner and Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd, Eluru and three others. ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No. 8016 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the notice issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Rural Eluru, in Lr.No.ADE/O/R/ELR/Sub-Er/F.24 Hrs/D.No.444/08, dated 22-02-2008, wherein the petitioner was asked to pay an amount of Rs.58,804/- within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the supply will be disconnected without any further notice. 2. According to the impugned notice, when the petitioner filed an application for providing 24 Hours 3-Phase supply to S.C.No.63/Cat-III of Pedavegi village and Mandal, the same was sanctioned duly collecting half of the total estimated cost, as the petitioner consented for a total consumption of 14196 units within the pay back period of 6.5 months, as per E.O.O.RT (Coml.) M.S.No.80, dated 10-07-2003. It appears, petitioner has not achieved the said consumption, within the pay back period of 6.5 months. Therefore, the shortfall units less the actual consumption to the anticipated consumption have been finalized as noticed below: a) Anticipated Consumption within a pay back period: 14196 units b) Actual consumption within pay back period : 4787.38 Units c) Net shortfall in anticipated consumption : 9408.62 Units d) Cost of shortfall units @ Rs.6.25 per unit : 58803.88 or say Rs.58,804/- Accordingly, the demand was made for an amount of Rs.58,804/-. 3. There is no necessity of going into all the details. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had already paid half of the estimated cost of the service connection earlier and he is supposed to pay the remaining amount only and therefore, the amount, which is demanded under the impugned notice, is illegal and arbitrary. 5. No doubt the petitioner has paid half of the amount claiming towards estimated cost of the service connection, but that amount does not relate to the demand arose under E.O.O.RT (Coml.) M.S.No.80, dated 10-07-2003. In fact, when the petitioner did not utilize the minimum contracted demand and he had consented for being treated under E.O.O.RT (Com.) M.S.No.80, dated 10-07-2003, he was allowed to utilize the scheme for twelve months pay back period and thus he had to utilize total consumption of 14196 units within pay back period of 6.5 months. However, he did not utilize the same as noticed above. Thus the cost of shortfall units i.e., Rs.58,804/- was sought to be collected. 6. Though the petitioner tried to impress upon the Court that he has already paid half of the estimated cost for the purpose of giving connection to the Theatre, that has nothing to do with the present demand. The present demand arose in view of the agreement entered into between the parties and in view of the shortfall consumption of the units during the pay back period. It appears, at the time of admitting of the writ petition on 16-04-2008, this Court passed an interim order (as prayed for) subject to payment of an amount of Rs.31,450/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said interim order of this Court was complied with. The writ petition has no merits whatsoever. 7. However, the respondents are directed to give credit to the amounts, if any, already paid by the petitioner, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 16-04-2008, while collecting the amounts under the impugned notice. The petitioner is granted eight weeks time for payment of the balance amount from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo as on today shall be maintained. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V. RAMULU, J Date: 26-10-2010 YCR