* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH + WRIT PETITION NO. 6287 OF 2001 AND BATCH % FRIDAY THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE # M/s. GMR Technologies & Industries Limited and others. ...Petitioners. Versus $ The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APTRANSCO) and others. ...Respondents. ! Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Y. ASHOK RAJ M/s. C. KODANDA RAM ^ Counsel for the Respondents: MS. G. SUDHA MR. RAMESH RANGANADHAN MR. V. AJAY KUMAR MR. M. SREE RAMULU REDDY MR. A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY MR. N. SUBBA REDDY < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 1968 2 S.C.R 366 2. (1970) 1 SCC 582 3. (1979) 2 SCC 409 4. (1997) 7 SCC 251 5. (1999) 4 SCC 727 6. (2004) 6 SCC 465 7. (1995) 5 SCC 482 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.Nos.6287 and 2331 of 2001, 5713, 5955, 10201, 22157, 11192 and 6147 of 2000 WRIT PETITION No: 6287 of 2001 Between: M/s. GMR Technologies & Industries Limited, A Public Limited Company, having its Registered Office at Ravivalasa Village, Tekkali, Srikakuklam District and its Corporate Office at 6-3-866/868, Greenlands, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500 016, represented by its Executive Director, G. Subba Rao. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, (APTRANSCO), Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2. The Superintending Engineer (Operations), Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Srikakulam. 3. The Senior Accounts Officer (Operation Circle), Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Srikakulam. 4. The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. …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, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order declaring the letter No. SE/O/SKL/SAO/HT/D.No.211/2001 dated 29.03.2001 of the Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, E.P.D.C. of A.P. Ltd., the 3rd respondent herein, as illegal and void; Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. Y. ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondents: MS. G. SUDHA MR.M. SREE RAMULU REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 2331 of 2001 Between: M/s. Andhra Ferro Alloys Limited, Srinivasa Nagar, Chintala Palem (PO), Vizianagaram District, represented by its Managing Director, Mr. Bajendra Khandelwal. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shram Shakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 2. The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman, Hemkunt Chambers, 10th Floor, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi. 3. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, represented by its Chairman, New Delhi. 4. The A.P. State electricity Board, Represented by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hdyerabad. 5. A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Vizianagaram. 7. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Cirlce, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Vizianagaram. …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, direction or order declaring the demands communicated by the 7th respondent herein i.e., the Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Vizianagaram through his letters; 1. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.371/2000 dated 05.08.2000; 2. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.436/2000 dated 05.09.2000; 3. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.444/2000 dated 12.09.2000; 4. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.484/2000 dated 09.10.2000; 5. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.531/2000 dated 01.11.2000; 6. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.578/2000 dated 30.11.2000; 7. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.636/2001 dated 01.01.2001; and 8. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.57/2001, dated 30.01.2001; as illegal and forbid the enforcement of the same Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. C. KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR. A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY MR. RAMESH RANGANADHAN MR. V. AJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 5713 of 2000 Between: M/s. GMR Vasavi Industries Limited, A Public Limited Company, having its Registered Office at Tekkali, Srikakuklam District, represented by its Managing Director, Mr. S.S.N. Murthy. …PETITIONER AND 1. The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, (APTRANSCO), Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintending Engineer (Operations), AP TRANSCO, Srikakulam. 4. The Senior Accounts Officer (Operation Circle), AP TRANSCO, Srikakulam. …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 direction or writ in the nature of mandamus declaring that the demand in the sum of Rs.2,84,24,028/- (by letter dated 19.02.2000) and for the sum of Rs.60,44,572.45ps (by letter dated 07.03.2000) by the respondents, as illegal, arbitrary and unlawful, and consequently set aside the said two letters Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. Y. ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondents: MS. G. SUDHA MR.M. SREE RAMULU REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 5955 of 2000 Between: M/s. Jindal Strips Limited, (Ferro Alloys Division), D.No.58-17-1/1, Sanjivayya Nagar, Near N.A.D. Kotha Road Junction, Visakhapatnam – 9, represented by its Vice President, Shri Sitaram Agarwal. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shram Shakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 2. The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman, Hemkunt Chambers, 10th Floor, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi. 3. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, represented by its Chairman, New Delhi. 4. The A.P. State electricity Board, Represented by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hdyerabad. 5. The A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, A.P. Transco, Vizianagaram. 7. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Cirlce, A.P. Transco, Vizianagaram. …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 other appropriate Writ, direction or order declaring the following demands communicated by the Superintending Engineer, Operation, A.P. Transco, Vizianagaram through his letters 1. Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/HT/97/2000 dated 28.02.2000; 2. Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/HT/98/2000 dated 28.02.2000; 3. Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/SAO/HT/100/2000 dated 29.02.2000; 4. Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/HT/157/2000 dated 01.04.2000; and 5. Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/HT/203/1999 dated 19.04.1999; as illegal and forbid the enforcement of the same and direct refund of Rs.69,40,918/- collected from the petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. C. KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR. A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY MR. RAMESH RANGANADHAN MR. V. AJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 10201 of 2000 Between: M/s. Jindal Strips Limited, (Ferro Alloys Division), D.No.58-17-1/1, Sanjivayya Nagar, Near N.A.D. Kotha Road Junction, Visakhapatnam – 9, represented by Mr. Srinivas Mantha, Manager (Per and Admn.). …PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shram Shakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 2. The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman, Hemkunt Chambers, 10th Floor, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi. 3. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, represented by its Chairman, New Delhi. 4. The A.P. State electricity Board, Represented by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hdyerabad. 5. The A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, A.P. Transco, Vizianagaram. 7. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Cirlce, A.P. Transco, Vizianagaram. …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 other appropriate Writ, Direction or order declaring the demands communicated by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Vizianagaram vide Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/Ht/199/2000 dated 29.04.2000 and Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/Ht/260/2000 dated 07.06.2000 as illegal and forbid the enforcement of the same Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. C. KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR. N. SUBBA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 22157 of 2000 Between: M/s. Jindal Strips Limited, (Ferro Alloys Division), D.No.58-17-1/1, Sanjivayya Nagar, Near N.A.D. Kotha Road Junction, Visakhapatnam – 9, represented by Mr. Srinivas Mantha, Manager (Per and Admn.). …PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shram Shakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 2. The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman, Hemkunt Chambers, 10th Floor, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi. 3. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, represented by its Chairman, New Delhi. 4. The A.P. State electricity Board, Represented by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hdyerabad. 5. The A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, A.P. Transco, Vizianagaram. 7. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Cirlce, A.P. Transco, Vizianagaram. …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 other appropriate Writ, Direction or order declaring the demands communicated by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Vizianagaram vide 1. Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/HT/301/2000 dated 30.06.2000; 2. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.371/2000 dated 05.08.2000; 3. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.444/2000 dated 12.09.2000; 4. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.436/2000 dated 05.09.2000; 5. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.468/2000 dated 23.09.2000; 6. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.484/2000 dated 09.10.2000; 7. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.531/2001 dated 01.11.2000; and 8. Lr.No.SE/OP/VZM/HT/D.No.532/2001 dated 02.11.2000; notice for disconnection of supply on or before 17.11.2000 as illegal and forbid the enforcement of the same Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. C. KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR. A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY MR. RAMESH RANGANADHAN MR. V. AJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 11192 of 2000 Between: M/s. Andhra Ferro Alloys Limited, Srinivasa Nagar, Chintala Palem (PO), Vizianagaram District, represented by its Managing Director, Mr. Bajendra Kandelwala. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shram Shakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 2. The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman, Hemkunt Chambers, 10th Floor, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi. 3. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, represented by its Chairman, Hemkunt Chambers, 10th Floor, 89 Nehru Place, New Delhi. 4. The A.P. State electricity Board, Represented by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hdyerabad. 5. The A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P. Transco, Vizianagaram District, now re-designated, as The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Vizianagaram. 7. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Cirlce, A.P. Transco, Vizianagaram. …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 other appropriate Writ, Direction or order declaring the demands communicated by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Vizianagaram through his letters (1) Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/HT/199/2000 dated 29.04.2000 and (2) Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/HT/260/2000 dated 07.06.2000, as illegal and forbid the enforcement of the same Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. C. KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR. A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY MR. RAMESH RANGANADHAN MR. V. AJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 6147 of 2000 Between: M/s. Andhra Ferro Alloys Limited, Srinivasa Nagar, Chintala Palem (PO), Vizianagaram District, represented by its Managing Director, Mr. Bajendra Kandelwala. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shram Shakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 2. The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman, Hemkunt Chambers, 10th Floor, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi. 3. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, represented by its Chairman, Hemkunt Chambers, 10th Floor, 89 Nehru Place, New Delhi. 4. The A.P. State electricity Board, Represented by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hdyerabad. 5. The A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P. Transco, Vizianagaram District. 7. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Cirlce, A.P. Transco, Vizianagaram. …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 other appropriate Writ, Direction or order declaring the demands communicated by the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Vizianagaram through his letters 1. Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/HT/97/2000 dated 28.02.2000; 2. Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/HT/98/2000 dated 28.02.2000; 3. Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/SAO/HT/100/2000 dated 29.02.2000; 4. Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/HT/157/2000 dated 01.04.2000; and 5. Lr.No.SE/O/VZM/HT/204/1999 dated 19.04.1999; as illegal and forbid the enforcement of the same and direct refund of Rs.33,52,892/- collected from the petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. C. KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR. A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY MR. RAMESH RANGANADHAN MR. V. AJAY KUMAR The Court Made the following order: COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri L. Nageswara Rao, Senior Advocate and Sri C. Kodanda Ram, Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. Subba Reddy, Sri Ramesh Ranganadhan, Sri M. Sree Ramulu Reddy and Ms. G. Sudha learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Andhra Ferro Alloys Limited situated at Vizianagaram District filed three writ petitions in WP.No.6147 of 2000, WP.No.11192 of 2000 and WP.No.2331 of 2001 to declare the supplementary demands of the Superintending Engineer, Operation, A.P.Transco, Vizianagaram, re-designated as the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Vizianagaram and the Senior Accounts Officer of the said operation circle. 3. GMR Vasavi Industries Limited situated at Tekkali, Srikakulam District filed WP.No.5713 of 2000 seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the demand of the respondents by way of supplementary bills as illegal, arbitrary and unlawful. 4. GMR Technologies & Industries Limited situated at Ravivalasa Village, Tekkali, Srikakulam District filed WP.No.6287 of 2001 seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the letter of the Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, EPDC of AP Limited, making an additional demand as illegal and void. 5. Jindal Strips Limited (Ferro Alloys Division) situated at Visakhapatnam, filed three writ petitions in WP.No.5955 of 2000, WP.No.10201 of 2000 and WP.No.22157 of 2000 to declare additional demands made by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Vizianagaram as illegal and unlawful. 6. Petitioners are High Tension consumers of the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APTRANSCO) and manufacturers of various Ferro alloys. They are power intensive units and power is one of the main raw materials apart from chrome ore, Quartz, coal etc. It is stated that the Ferro alloy industries in India were in difficult market situations and the industry was forced to accrue financial losses resulting in closure of many units and during the said period the exports were also badly affected. Therefore, the Indian Ferro Alloys Producers Association made a representation to the Central Government for supply of regular and reliable power, from the power stations of National Thermal Power Station (NTPC) an undertaking of Ministry of Power, Union of India, to export oriented Ferro alloy units in order to boost their production for export purposes and compete in the international market. The Ministry of Power, Government of India considered the requests of the Ferro Alloy units as well as that of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, the Ministry of Power, Government of India addressed a letter dated 21.03.1995 to the Central Electricity Authority deciding to allocate certain units of power out of 15% unallocated share of Central Government. 7. It is also pertinent to note that the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh vide his letter dated 09.04.1994 requested the Ministry of Power, Government of India, to supply power directly from NTPC Stations through state electricity grid on collection of the wheeling charges to such Ferro alloy units earmarked for 100% export of alloy production. In response to the said letter, the Ministry of Power addressed a letter dated 30.04.1994 to the then Chief Minister, to supply power from Central sector stations to the 100% export oriented Ferro alloy units during the off peak hours on certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, certain MW of power was allocated to six export oriented Ferro alloy units in the State out of 15% unallocated share of the Central Government in southern region between July, 1994 to October, 1995 and continued upto 2000. 8. GMR Vasavi Industries Limited was allocated 7 MW of power, Jindal Strips Limited was allocated 7 MW of power, Andhra Ferro Alloys Limited was allocated 4 MW of power, Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited was allocated 16 MW of power, VBC Ferro Alloys Limited was allocated 15 MW of power and Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited was allocated 20 MW of power respectively. All these units were the consumers of the APTRANSCO and they continued to be the consumers of the said corporation. 9. Sri L. Nageswara Rao, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in WP.Nos.5713 of 2000 and WP.No.6287 of 2001 were allocated 10 MW power by the Ministry of Power, Union of India for its 100% export oriented Ferro Alloys unit from out of 15% unallocated power generated from Ramagundam STPS at NTPC tariff during off peak hours on collection of wheeling charges by APSEB. But the petitioners availed 7 MW power only since March, 1995 though 10 MW power was allocated from out of 15% unallocated portion of power from STPS, Ramagundam. It is stated that APSEB was directed to collect the wheeling charges from the petitioners for the power supplied to them out of 15% unallocated share. Accordingly, the APSEB vide its letter dated 20.05.1995 agreed to wheel the power on collection of the wheeling charges as per APSEB rates. By letter dated 19.07.1995 APSEB agreed for accounting and billing from 01.11.1994 in respect of M/s. Ferro Alloys Corporation, Vizianagaram and M/s. VBC Ferro Alloys Limited, Medak and in respect of GMR Vasavi Industries Limited with effect from 23.03.1995. It is stated that the energy shall be billed from the State Ferro Alloys Companies at NTPC rates plus Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) transmission charges plus electricity duty at 6 Ps/Kwh apart from wheeling charges to APSEB/APTRANSCO. 10. There is no dispute that GMR Technologies & Industries Limited have availed 7 MW continuous power for 24 hours in stead of 10 MW during off peak hours as per the letter of Director, Ministry of Power, Union of India dated 11.07.1995. The billing procedure was indicated by APSEB by its memo dated 19.07.1995. The memo clearly states that Gross NTPC energy shall be charged at NTPC tariff plus PGCIL transmission charges plus electricity duty at 6 Ps/Kwh. It is alleged that several additional claims made by the NPTC, from 1995 to 1998 through notifications during June 1997 to 1998 towards gross incentives, in addition to the NTPC tariff, were not at all intimated to the petitioners by APSEB and the petitioners came to know about the same only through the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. It is stated that further bills were raised by the APSEB/APTRANSCO informing the petitioners about the short billing for 7/97 to 12/98 and called upon the petitioners to pay huge sums without there being any whisper about the NTPC’s claim regarding the additional claims. Petitioners were demanded an amount of Rs.2,84,24,028/- stating that APSEB had paid the said amount to NTPC towards incentives, income tax, foreign exchange rate variation and water cess; without furnishing any bills supplied by the NTPC. Therefore, the petitioners have requested the APSEB time and again to furnish the particulars of the said bills but the respondents without furnishing the same served disconnection notices on the petitioners, on the threat of disconnection the amounts were paid under protest. Therefore, the said demand and collection of the said amounts is illegal, arbitrary and unlawful and it is liable to be set aside. 11. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners further submits that APSEB, its successors, APTRANSCO and EPDC of AP Limited as the case may be and the present successor is barred from raising impugned demands as per the well established principle of “Promissory Estoppel”. The Principle of Promissory estoppel is that, when one party has, by his words or conduct, made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise or assurance which was intended to affect the legal relations between then and to be acted on accordingly, then, once the other party has taken him at his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to their previous legal relations as if no such promise or assurance had been made by him, but must accept their legal relations subject to the qualification which he himself has so introduced. A Public body is not exempted from its liability to carry out its obligation arising out of representations made by it relying upon which a citizen has altered his position to his prejudice. 12. It is stated that if a representation is made that a benefit of substantive nature will be granted or if the person is already in receipt of the benefit that will be continued and not be substantially varied, then the same could be enforced. The decision-maker can normally be compelled to give effect to his representation in regard to the expectation based on previous practice or past conduct unless some overriding public interest comes in the way. In support of the said principle the learned senior counsel relied on the following judgments: 1. U.O.I. & ORS v. M/S. INDO – AFGHAN AGENCIES LTD 2. CENTURY SPINNING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER v. THE ULHASHANAGAR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANOTHER 3. M/S. MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD v. STATE OF UP AND OTHERS 4. PAWAN ALLOYS & CASING PVT. LTD., MEERUT v. UP STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS 5. PUNJAB COMMUNICATIONS LTD v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 6. STATE OF PUNJAB V. NESTLE INDIA LTD. AND ANOTHER It is further stated that there is no Privity of Contract between APTRANSCO and the petitioner company. The petitioners are not bound by the terms of the agreement between NTPC and APSEB/ APTRANSCO. Without any support from a Statutory provision or a covenant in a contract, the APTRANSCO does not have either power or jurisdiction to make the demand for recovering the additional payments alleged to have been made to the NTPC. He contends that the action of the APTRANSCO is unfair and unjust and it being the instrumentality of the State, it’s duty and action must be fair and in a just manner. Petitioners cannot be made to suffer due to callousness and negligence of APTRANSCO. In support of this contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in LIC v. CONSUMER EDUCATION at Paras 19 and 24 to 27. 13. Sri C. Kodanda Ram, learned counsel, appearing for some of the petitioners submits that the APSEB/APTRANSCO clearly indicated the methodology of billing and in the memos dated 20.05.1995 and 19.07.1995 issued by the APSEB/APTRANSCO in respect of the said power of Central unallocated quota from NTPC and the petitioners have to pay for the power supplied at the NTPC tariff/rate notified every month. For the power supplied by APSEB, payment would be made at the prevailing rates of APSEB. Insofar as the unallocated NTPC power being transmitted over the system of the APSEB, wheeling charges @ 15% were payable to the APSEB. But the APSEB cannot unilaterally revise the bills with retrospective effect after the lapse of five years. It is stated that at times there are instances when APSEB revised their demands reducing substantially from Rs.90,29,735/- to Rs.69,40,918/- on verification and the bills demanded by APSEB were not supported by any particulars and therefore, the demand made by APSEB/APTRANSCO do not reflect proportionate amount said to have been demanded by NTPC due to revision of the tariff. 14. It is stated that there is sinister lack of transparency in the action of the APTRANSCO, demanding additional amount pursuant to the demand made by the NTPC. The learned counsel submits that in the absence of any particulars furnished for the demand made by the NTPC to APSEB it cannot be said that the said demand made by APSEB is in proportion to the total demand with reference to the NTPC power utilized by the petitioners. 15. Counter has been filed on behalf of APSEB/APTRANSCO/ concerned power distribution companies stating that the petitioners