HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5840 of 2005 Date : 17.11.2009 Between : M/s.G.Prasad Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad, rep. by its Administrative Officer. …..Petitioner And The Chairman, Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Hyderabad & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5840 of 2005 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the demand raised by the respondents, for payment of an amount of Rs.10,52,939/-, pursuant to the letter dated 24th February 2005, issued in Letter No.AAO/ERO/JDM/ HV/D.No.821. 2. The petitioner was released electricity power supply vide Service Connection bearing No.913 with a contracted load of 74 HP on 13.01.1986. The power supply is being used by the petitioner for the purpose of its industrial activity for manufacture of fan guards and press components. The supply was released to the petitioner under LT category III-A, and the metre that was fixed to the premises was BQ 02150. The revolution/ capacity is 1280/3 & 5A and CTR/MF is 125/5A and 25. Having regard to the category of metre, which is supplied to the petitioner, the actual consumption that is to be recorded in the metre has to be multiplied with the multiplying factor of 25. The bills were issued to the petitioner by applying the correct multiplying factor of 25 upto March 2002, but inadvertently, in the consumption bills issued to the petitioner for the period from April 2002 to December 2004, the multiplying factor 1 was applied instead of 25. When the records were verified and the respondents have realized such mistake in issuing the bills, the impugned proceedings were issued, asking the petitioner to pay the differential amount of consumption charges for the bills issued to the petitioner from April 2002 to December 2004. 3. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that there is no default on his part in paying the consumption charges and that he was paying the bills regularly. It is submitted that in that view of the matter, there is no valid basis for issuing the impugned demand for payment of Rs.10,52,939/-. The learned counsel relies on the provision under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in support of his argument that as much as the arrears were of more than three years old, respondents are not empowered to realize such amounts in view of the provision contained under Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is also stated by the learned counsel for petitioner that during the said period, the petitioner was not issued the bills based on the actual consumption, but was given bills on average consumption basis. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by the Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, APCPDCL, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad. In the counter affidavit, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that though the metre readings were taken regularly, but by mistake in the office of the ERO, bills were issued by applying the multiplying factor of 1 instead of 25. It is stated that the said mistake was noticed in the month of January 2005, and therefore, by applying the multiplying factor of 25, demand was issued, asking the petitioner to pay the differential amount. Further, the respondents have denied the allegation of the petitioner that they were collecting the bills on average consumption basis, but not on the basis of actual energy consumed. 5. In this case, it is to be noted that the electricity supply was provided to the petitioner on 13th January 1986. From the counter affidavit, it is clear that the service connection which is provided to the petitioner is with a contracted load of 74 HP, and having regard to the category of metre which is fixed for arriving at the consumption, the multiplying factor of 25 was to be applied to the bills issued to the petitioner, and that upto April 2002, bills were issued by applying the multiplying factor of 25 and the same were paid, but however, by mistake, in the bills issued for the period from April 2002 to December 2004, the multiplying factor of 1 was applied instead of 25. In that view of the matter, it is a case where there is a mistake on the part of respondents in applying the correct multiplying factor while issuing the bills. By not applying the correct multiplying factor, correct consumption was not recorded in the bills, and as such, when it was noticed on verification of records, the respondents have issued the revised bills for the period from April 2002 to December 2004. In that view of the matter, as much as it is not in dispute that the multiplying factor 1 was applied for the bills issued to the petitioner instead of 25, it is always open for the respondents to rectify the said mistake and issue correct bills by applying the correct multiplying factor. 6. Though the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the time restrictions imposed under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for recovering the arrears of consumption charges, but it is not a case of recovery of defaulted amount from the consumer, as such, the said provision has no application to the facts of the case on hand. It is not a case of default on the part of the consumer, but it is a case where, by mistake, the respondents have issued consumption bills by applying the wrong multiplying factor, and in that view of the matter, it is always open for the respondents to recover the differential amount without reference to the time restrictions imposed under Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, I do not find any illegality on the part of respondents in issuing the impugned demand. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, dated 22nd March 2004, out of the demanded amount, an amount of Rs.4 lakhs was paid by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, petitioner is permitted to pay the balance of the demanded amount in three equated instalments. The first of such instalment shall be paid within a period of two months from today i.e. on or before 17.01.2010, and the 2nd instalment shall be payable on or before 17.03.2010 and the 3rd instalment shall be payable on or before 17.05.2010. In case of any default on the part of the petitioner in paying the balance amount as directed above, it is open for the respondents to take steps in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of supply. 7. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th November 2009 Note : Issue C.C. in three days. (b/o) ajr