IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8664 of 2007 Between: M/s. Vijayanand Textile Mills (P)Ltd., Plot No. 7-3-72, Kattedan, Old Kurnool road, Ranga Reddy District, rep by its Director, SRi Purushotham Agarwal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Central Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., rep byits Chairman & Managing Director Singareni Bhavan, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Ranga Reddy CIrcle (SOuth),Central, Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 3 The Senior Accounts Officer, Operations Circle, R.r. South Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 4 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Opration, Central Power Distribution Company of AP., Ltd., Ganganpahad, 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the levy of monthly minimum charges in the facts and circumstances of the case as illegal unjust, arbitrary, unsustainable and set a side the consequential letter No. SC/OP/RRC(S)/SAO/JAO/HT/D. No. 337/06-07 dt 16-3-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents to refund the monthly minimum charges collected from the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.VEERASWAMY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.SREERAMULU REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a company, engaged in the business of printing and dyeing of synthetic fabrics, stating that it obtained all the requisite licenses from the concerned State and Central Government Authorities for the purpose of carrying on its activities. It has also obtained the consent of the A.P.State Pollution Control Board for establishing the unit and has been availing the High Tension Power Supply from the 1st respondent – Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh ( for short ‘the company’ ). While the matter stood thus, the petitioner company has been closed down vide proceedings dated 5.8.2005 of the A.P.Pollution Control Board and the power supply was disconnected. Subsequently, the petitioner unit was again opened for a short period and again it was closed down and the power supply was once again disconnected on 12.6.2006 in pursuance of an order passed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board. But, the officers of the 1st respondent company were issuing bills by levying monthly minimum charges even during the closure of the unit and a letter was sent on 13.10.2006 to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent to the effect that the petitioner unit is due an amount of Rs.6,02,201/- towards the consumption charges from 7/06 to 9/06, in default of payment of which, the agreement entered with the petitioner would be terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner represented to the A.P.Pollution Control Board to accord consent for operation for carrying out its activities and since the said request was rejected, the petitioner carried the matter before this Court in W.P.No.25128 of 2006. It is stated that even during the pendency of the said writ petition, the 1st respondent has been raising the CC bills by levying monthly minimum charges and threatening with termination of the agreement in default of payment of the CC charges. Therefore, it made a representation to the 2nd respondent to waive the minimum bills till the power supply is restored to it. Instead of considering the said representation, a letter dated 16.3.2007 was addressed to the petitioner stating that an amount of Rs.7,95,514/- is due towards CC charges from 10/06 to 1/07 and the agreement will be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of the said notice, if the said amount is not paid. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. This Court while issuing notice before admission on 24.4.2007 granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order, on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month on or before 15th of every month and the arrears if any, accrued so far towards minimum charges shall be cleared by 15.5.2007 and in case the petitioner consumes any electricity, it shall be under an obligation to pay the consumption charges. Today, when the matter is taken up, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner complied with the orders of this court for some time, it is now not in a position to comply with the said orders and it does not want to agitate the matter any further. However, it is stated that it made a representation to the Superintending Engineer, Operation on 30.1.2009 seeking to settle the accounts and to refund the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- paid by it towards the minimum charges along with the additional consumption deposit of Rs.21,06,757/-, but so far the said representation is not considered and orders have not been passed and, therefore, requests this Court to direct the authorities to consider its representation. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent company to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.1.2009 and pass appropriate orders thereon. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any amounts, the same may be refunded to it. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.29.4.2009 msv