IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25862 of 1998 Between: M/s Prisyadarshini Cement Ltd., Plot No.34, H.No.8-3-1008, Srinagar Colony, Hyd-500073. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSEB, Vidyut Soudha, Hyd., Rep by its Secretary. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APSEB, Nalgonda-500001. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the Supplementary Bill for the month of May, 1998 dt.31.8.98 purporting to revise the bill pursuant to Memo No.CE(Comml.)/AE/R&C/D.No.695, dt.28.8.98 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions of supply notified by the board and set aside the same Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is a cement factory and it is provided with high tension power supply. The then Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short, ‘the Board’) imposed restrictions on power consumption through B.P.Ms.No. 161, dated 10-02-1997. The contracted maximum demand of the petitioner was 15000 KVA and the same was slashed down to 10.975.36 KVA. The Board lifted the restrictions/power cuts through orders in B.P.Ms.No. 11, dated 02-05- 1998 with effect from 03-05-1998. Every consumer, particularly the HT consumers are under obligation to pay the minimum charges. However, during the power cuts, the requirement to pay the minimum charges is waived. In B.P.Ms.No.11 itself, the billing pattern was indicated. It was mentioned that separate bills shall be prepared for the consumption up to 03-05- 1998 on the one hand and for the remaining period of the month on the other hand. While for the first spell, the restrictions as well as the waiver of minimum charges operated, the second spell though relieved of the restrictions on consumption of power supply, was subjected to payment of minimum charges. On a representation made by the Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Board waived the minimum charges for the remainder of May, 1998 also. The petitioner was issued a bill for the month of May on 26-05-1998 for a sum of Rs.79,87,221/- and the amount was paid on 09-06-1998. However, on 31-08-1998, a supplemental bill was issued for a sum of Rs.3,54,144/- for the same period. This was the result of treating the actuals recorded for period beyond 03-05-1998 for the entire month of May. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the two periods of the month namely up to 03-08-1998 and beyond that date, are governed by totally different regimes, be it as to the restrictions or the liability to pay penalty and there was no basis for the respondents in treating the entire period as one. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that with the lifting of power cuts and waiver of minimum charges for the month of May, the distinction between these two spells disappeared and the highest figure of maximum demand during the month was taken into account and the billing was made accordingly. Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It has already been pointed out that the CMD fixed for the petitioner is 15000 KVA and on account of power cuts, it was reduced to 10975.36 KVA. The power cuts were lifted with effect from 03-05- 1998. It is not even alleged that the petitioner had exceeded the restrictions imposed against it. Once the power cuts were lifted, the petitioner naturally consumed excessive power and beyond 03-05-1998. It was recorded at 11426.03 KVA. This figure is within the maximum limits, namely 15000 KVA. Up to 03-05-1998, the petitioner reeled under severe restrictions in several aspects. Though the minimum charges were waived, crossing of the limits would have invited imposition of penalty. This has undergone radical change with the lifting of restrictions. The mere fact that the minimum charges were waived for the remaining period of May, 1998 hardly constitutes any ground for treating the entire month as a single unit, in the context of adopting the figures of maximum demand. The petitioner felt free to cross the figure of 10975.36 KVA after 03-05-1998 on account of the lifting of the restrictions. Having kept the petitioner under restriction up to 03-05-1998, the respondents cannot adopt a higher figure of demand for the same period on the basis of consumption for subsequent period. As a matter of fact, the respondents understood the billing procedure correctly and issued the bill dated 26-05-1998. The supplemental bill dated 31-08-1998 does not accord either with the proceedings issued by the Board from time to time or with the pattern of power supply. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned bill is set aside. No order as to costs. L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 05-12-2008 ks