IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2698 of 2008 Between: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Chief Regional Manager, S.K.Suri Secunderabad REtail Regional Office, 9-1-130/1, Sebastian Street, S.D. Road, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 2 The Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Singareni Bhavan, Red HIlls, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. Nalgonda - 508 001. 4 The Assistant Divisional Engineer (OPerations) Rajahmundry, E.G. District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3, in categorizing the electrical connection Consumer Service No.NLG 417 of the petitioner-unit located at Visakhapatnam, in H.T.Category II, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tariff category agreed during release of supply was H.T. Category I whereas the monthly billing is being done under H.T. Category II. Hence, he made a representation before the third respondent requesting to revise the billing from H.T. Category II to H.T. Category I, and to refund the excess amount. As he was unsuccessful in his representation, he availed the remedies of filing appeals before the Consumer Redressal Forum and the Vidyut Ombudsman, both of whom dismissed the said appeals. Hence, he filed the present Writ Petition. This Court while issuing notice before admission, granted interim direction to the respondents to bill the petitioner at the tariffs applicable to HT Category I, and accordingly, it is paying CC charges at that rate. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it is to be seen that the petitioner’s service connection was classified under H.T.Category II itself, and agreement to that effect was entered into by the respondents with the petitioner. Therefore, the issue of reclassification does not arise and what the petitioner is seeking in this Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to change the category from H.T. Category II to H.T.Category I. Since this Court is not inclined to decide the issue viz., whether, having regard to the nature of the activity of the petitioner, it falls under H.T.Category II or H.T.Category I, at this stage, I refrain from going into the said issue. Today, I passed an order in Writ Petition No.2185 of 2008 filed with a similar grievance. The respondents therein were directed to issue notice to the petitioner and decide its claim as to categorization. Since the facts are similar, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the said order with the direction that the reasons contained therein shall form part of this order. However, it is made clear that the petitioner herein shall continue to pay tariff under H.T.Category II, till final decision is taken by respondent No.3. As a sequel to disposal of this Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.3468 and 3469 of 2008 and WVMP.No.928 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 16th April, 2008 lur