IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 2934 of 1999 BETWEEN: M/s. Samudra Cements Ltd., Rep. by its Director C.L. Mittal, Mittal Chambers, Asilmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam-530 003. ... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Transco rep. by its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer (Operation), A.P. Transmission Corporation, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation Division, A.P. Transmission Corporation, Zone-II, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Distribution, A.P. Transmission Corporation, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not refunding the amount of development charges and other refundable amounts to the petitioner company is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to refund the said amounts Rs.73,683/- to the petitioner company and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.O.MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner-company submits that it has availed temporary supply from the then APSEB under Category VIII to Plot No.28, D Block expansion, Auto Nagar for construction activities and made a security deposit and development charges at Rs.22,683/- vide letter No.SCL/006/337 dated 09.12.1995 and accordingly the board released the temporary supply with 7.46 KW initially for a period of 90 days. While so, the premises of the petitioner company was inspected on 03.01.1997 and alleged that it has exceeded the contracted load by 44 HP and accordingly, the fourth respondent issued a notice dated 06.02.1997 stating that when inspection was made on 03.01.1997 it was found that the petitioner-company making use of excess load of 44 HP and accordingly it was requested to regularize the additional load connection by paying Rs.51,000/- towards development charges and Rs.6,800/- towards security deposit. To the said notice the petitioner made a representation dated 07.02.1997 stating that temporary supply connection is no more required and requested to the refund the development charges. 2. Petitioner-company further submits that it has made a further representation dated 31.03.1997 for refund of the development charges of Rs.51,000/- and in that connection the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation Division, Zone III, Visakhapatnam addressed a letter dated 03.04.1997 requesting the petitioner to address a letter to the Superintending Engineer (Operation), Divisional Engineer (Assessment), Visakhapatnam, which is the appropriate authority in that regard. The petitioner – company made a representation before the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APSEB, Visakhapatnam on 09.09.1998 for fund of the development charges of Rs.51,000/- and a further representation to the Divisional Engineer. Operation, Zone-II dated 13.11.1998 to refund the security deposit. As no steps have been taken, the petitioner-company filed this writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to fund the amount of Rs.73,683/-. 3. Counter has been filed stating that LT supply was released on 10.01.1996 to enable the petitioner-company to utilize the load of 7.46 KW initially for a period of 90 days, which was extended for another period of three months and thereafter, another extension of three months each till 07.02.1997. When the petitioner-company was inspected on 03.01.1997 it was found that the petitioner – company utilized the power beyond the sanctioned load of 7.46 KW by utilizing the power in excess of load by connecting additional load of 34 HP. Therefore, the petitioner-company is liable to pay the amount as indicated in the notice dated 06.02.1997 and accordingly, informed the petitioner-company to pay a sum of Rs.57,850/- towards development charges and security deposit for regularization of the unauthorized additional load utilized by the company as noticed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer/fourth respondent during the inspection. It is stated that the contention of the petitioner that he never exceeded the permitted load is incorrect as the petitioner-company has installed three generating sets of 40 KVA and 5 KBVA capacity and using the power from those generating sets also. The letter of the petitioner-company goes to show that the contractors engaged by the petitioner-company had installed their own equipments and were utilizing power supply for their equipments as well as for the equipments of the petitioner-company from out of the temporary power supply released to the company and exceeded the consumption of power supply of 40 KVA. Therefore, the petitioner is liable for payment of development charges for regularization of the additional connected load as per the amended clause 40.3 vide BP (Opn/Comml) MS.No.281/16.03.1996. 4. The petitioner-company does not dispute with regard to the legal requirement to pay the development charges for the additional connected load but it disputes only with regard to the actual utilization of the additional load. The said disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the writ petition. However, it is stated that the representation of the petitioner- company dated 09.09.1998 has not been considered. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent is directed to consider and dispose the representation of the petitioner-company in SCL/010/588 dated 09.09.1998, if not already disposed of, as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 8, 2008 DSK