HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.21556 of 1999 Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 Between: Dasika Industrial Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd., Srirampuram, Bhimavaram, W.G. District, Rep.by its Managing Director Sri D. Gopalakrishna, s/o. Suryanarayana Sastry … Petitioner AND Transmission Corporation of A.P., Ltd., Rep.by its Secretary, Hyderabad, and another … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.21556 of 1999 ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the notice dated 24.08.1999 issued by the second respondent as illegal, arbitrary and ultra virus and to direct the respondents to refund the excess amount of Rs.3,95,972.80 paise with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2) The petitioner is a private limited company and established a small scale unit at Bhimavaram in the year 1990. It has entered into a H.T. agreement with the respondent-APTRANSCO on 21.04.1989. Subsequently, the petitioner requested the respondents through letter, dated 27.01.1997 terminating the H.T. agreement and convert the supply into L.T. category. There was a lot of correspondence between the parties and ultimately the petitioner gave a letter on 17.02.1999 requesting the Board to disconnect the supply, as he is unable to pay the charges on account of his weak economic position. The second respondent issued a notice on 24.02.1999 saying that the letter dated 17.02.1999 will be treated as two months notice and the H.T. agreement will be terminated with effect from 17.05.1999 and if the petitioner wishes supply of power until L.T. conversion is made, it has to pay the H.T. bills regularly till then. Subsequently, the respondents were demanding H.T. charges and the petitioner was paying the same. 3) The grievance of the petitioner is that when once the termination notice has been issued, the respondents ought to have terminated the services, as per the terms of the tariff order. 4) However, on verification of the record, it is found that though the petitioner issued a notice on 27.01.2007 for termination of H.T. service and conversion of H.T. service into L.T. service, it was not for mere termination and when he sought for conversion of H.T. service into L.T. service, the Board sought for several clarifications and in that connection, lot of correspondence went on between the parties and ultimately the petitioner gave a letter on 11.02.1999 requesting the Board to disconnect the supply. So, that was treated as the notice for termination and the Board intimated that the service would be terminated with effect from 17.05.1999. 5) So according to the admitted facts, the Board has agreed to terminate the H.T. service with effect from 17.05.1999. Therefore, the Board is not entitled to collect the H.T. charges from the petitioner after 17.05.1999. Subsequently, on account of payment of the minimum charges, the service was disconnected and after filing of the writ petition and in pursuance to the interim direction passed by this Court, the L.T. service was extended. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to collect the L.T. consumption charges from the date of restoration of the supply in addition to the charges that are payable for providing a new service connection as per the rules. 6) In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to collect H.T. charges till 17.05.1999 only and they are entitled to collect L.T. charges from the date of providing new L.T. service connection and the expenses for the said new connection as per the rules. If there is any amount of the petitioner lying with the respondents, they are directed to adjust the amount towards the amount due from the petitioner, if any and raise the fresh bills for the balance amount. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 24.01.2008 Isn