IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3577 of 2009 Between: M/S Shivanadha Industries, B-1, Industrial Estate, Warangal, Rep by its Managing Partner, S.Suryanprakasa Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Divisional Engineer (Electrical), Distribution, A.P.N.P.D.C.L, Warangal, Warangal District 2 Assistant Divisional Engineer, DPE-II, A.P.N.P.D.C.L, Warangal, Warangal District 3 The Superintendent Engineer (Operations), A.P.N.P.D.C.L, Warangal, Warangal District 4 Chief General Manager, (Operations), Commercial & I.P.C. A.P.N.P.D.C.L, Warangal, Warangal District 5 Chairman and Managing Director, N.P.D.C.L, Warangal, Warangal District .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings of the respondent No.4 in Proceedings No.CGM/(OP,Comml & IPC)/NPDCL/WGL/GM/Plg/PE/F.No. D.No.476/08 dated 5-2-2009 confirming the Notice No.ADE/D/Wgl/FDKT 114/95-96/D.No.2181, dated 25-3-1996 and final order of the 3rd respondent dated 23-7-1997 on the allegation that the petitioner has exceeded the contracted load and calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.61,465/- for continuance of power supply as irrational and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to disconnect the electricity supply to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.A.R.SESHAGIRI RAO Counsel for the Respondents: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.3577 of 2009 Order: Questioning the proceedings, dated 05.02.2009, issued by the Chief General Manager (Operations), Commercial & I.P.C., A.P.N.P.D.C.L., Warangal, the fourth respondent herein, the present writ petition is filed. Under the impugned order, the petitioner-Industry was directed to get regularization of the additional load, which was identified during the inspection conducted on 14.03.1996, by paying necessary charges as per the Rules and also to pay the difference of the fixed charges from the date of inspection, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the proceedings, in default, power supply to the petitioner-Unit would be disconnected without any further notice, The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner has placed all the relevant material before the respondent-authorities, the same has not been considered properly. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for NPDCL appearing for the respondents. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner since a perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the fourth respondent, after going through the entire record, particularly, the order passed by this Court in earlier W.P.No.7704 of 1996 on 09.12.2004, came to a right conclusion that the petitioner-Industry is liable to pay the necessary charges under the impugned order, for regularization of additional load. Hence, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage. No costs. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to pay the necessary charges pursuant to the impugned proceedings, the petitioner is permitted to pay the necessary charges pursuant to the impugned proceedings for regularization of the additional load, within a period of four weeks and on such payment, the respondent-authorities are directed to regularize the additional load. It is, however, made clear that the respondent-authorities shall not take coercive steps pursuant to the impugned proceedings for a period of four weeks. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 25.02.2009 VGB