THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.3632 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner, which is a stone crushing unit, filed this Writ Petition challenging the validity of the electricity consumption bill for the month of January, 2003 issued by the second respondent on 01-02- 2003. The petitioner has availed high tension category power supply with a contracted maximum demand of 70 KVA and also entered into an agreement to avail power supply 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. As per the terms and conditions of supply, the petitioner has to maintain power factor not below 0.85. The unit of the petitioner was inspected and it was noticed that it has exceeded the contracted demand by consuming up to 133.7 KVA. In that view of the matter, as per the terms and conditions of supply up to 70 KVA, respondents have imposed normal rates i.e., Rs.195/- per KVA and as per the recorded maximum demand i.e., 63.7 KVA, they have applied the double charges to the normal charges and imposed penal rate charges of Rs.24,843/-. Further, having regard to readings, which were noted at the time of inspection, the power factor was calculated and it was at 0.61. In that view of the matter, as per the terms and conditions of supply, surcharge was imposed on the petitioner as per the condition No.23 of the terms and conditions of supply. In this Writ Petition, it is a case of the petitioner that such levies were made based on the meter readings, which are invariably defective. At no point of time, the petitioner has complained about the defect in the meter and when it was noticed that the petitioner has exceeded the contracted demand by using up to 133.7 KVA, though contracted demand was only up to 70 KVA, he raised the above plea. Even with regard to power factor, though it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner consumer to maintain not less than 0.85 as per the condition No.23 of the Conditions, he has violated the same, as it was arrived at 0.61 at the time of inspection. In that view of the matter, by merely pleading that invariably the meter shows wrong reading, the petitioner cannot challenge the validity of the order. In the absence of any representation by the petitioner on the correctness of the meter at any point of time before the date of inspection, there is no reason to accept the plea of the petitioner that the meter was not showing the correct readings. As no other ground is raised, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition to interfere with the impugned order. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As the petitioner has already paid half of the demanded amount pursuant to the demand in the impugned bill, the petitioner is granted eight weeks time from today to pay the balance amount. It is made clear that if the remaining balance amount is not paid within the period referred to above, it is open for the respondents to take steps in accordance with law to recover the said amount. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 02nd June, 2009. skmr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3632 of 2003 Between: M/s Lakshmi Stone Crushers., Rep. by its Proprietor Sri E.Ram Mohan Rao, S/o. E.Venkatarama Narasayya, Jawaharnaga Rangareddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Managing Director, Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 2 Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Mint Compound., Hyderabad. .....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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in seeking to levy penal rate demand charges and low power factor surcharge on the petitioners in the HTCC bill issued by the 2nd Respondent dt.1-2-2003 as violative of the principles of natural justice illegal, arbitrary and positive of Article 14 of the constitution of India and subsequently set aside the penal demand and direct the respondents not to collect the penal rate demand charges and the low power factor surcharge in the HTCC bill of the petitioner, issued by the 2nd Respondent dt.1-2-2003. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.R.RAGHUNANDAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following :