IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1489 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/09/2007 in WP NO : 9982 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M/s. Sagar Toursing Talkies, Ananthasagaram Village & Mandal, Nellore District, rep. byits Owner, Rapuru Pitchireddy ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Nellore, Nellore District. 2 The Superintending Engineer (Operation), Nellore, Nellore District. 3 The Assistant Accounts Officer, Sub Electricity Revenue Office, Atmakur, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MRS.M.SUGUNA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1489 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 21.09.2007, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing Writ Petition No.9982 of 2007, which was filed seeking to declare the action of the third respondent in issuing demand notice bearing No.504/06, dated 19.09.2006, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Appellant is the writ petitioner and respondents are the respondents in the said writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the said writ petition. 5. The writ petitioner was availing the power supply from the respondent-Company vide Service Connection No.310. While so, the writ petitioner received a letter, dated 25.03.2006, from the third respondent requesting it to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-, which was allegedly due to be paid by it towards the arrears to the respondent-Company. 6. In the said writ petitioner, the writ petitioner alleged that no details or particulars regarding the quantification of the said demanded amounts were furnished by the respondents. 7. The learned single Judge believing the averments made in the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondents, dismissed the said writ petition. Hence, the present writ appeal. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that, no doubt, the writ petitioner was availing the power supply from the respondent-Company, however, the said unit was closed down with effect from 20.01.2000 and there are no dues to be cleared by it, despite which, by a letter, dated 25.03.2006, the third respondent requested it to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards arrears to the respondent-company. 9. From the counter-affidavit, it appears that the writ petitioner had not been paying the electricity charges since August 1997 and as such, the said service connection was disconnected in the month of December 1999 and the issuance of bills was also stopped with effect from April 2000. It is further stated that a notice has been issued by the writ petitioner, through an advocate, to the respondent on 27.07.2006, to which, the third respondent had given a reply by way of a letter, dated 05.08.2006, stating, inter alia, that the amount demanded was towards the default committed by the writ petitioner in the payment of electricity charges with effect from August 1997 till the date of disconnection in the month of December 1999. 10. Therefore, obviously, the said service connection of the writ petitioner was disconnected, as it committed default in payment of the electricity charges, in the month of December 1999 and that the issuance of bills was also stopped from April 2000. The said demanded amount of Rs.30,000/- was allegedly towards the arrears of electricity charges to be paid by the writ petitioner to the third respondent from August 1997 till December 1999. 11. Further, it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner got issued a legal notice, through an advocate, dated 27.07.2006, to the third respondent, to which, it gave a reply letter, dated 05.08.2006, bringing to the notice of the writ petitioner all the details, despite which, the writ petitioner complained that no particulars are furnished. Since the factum of issuance of legal notice by the writ petitioner and the factum of reply letter by the third respondent are not in serious dispute, the learned single Judge was of the view that there was no reason to disbelieve the version of the third respondent in the counter-affidavit about the default committed by the writ petitioner in paying the electricity charges with effect from August 1997 to December 1999. 12. For the foregoing reasons, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, passed by the learned single Judge. 13. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 22nd December 2008 DR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2CD copies