THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.14106 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondent Electricity Board in collecting the full maximum demand charges (M.D. charges) without excluding the non-supply period, as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondent to charge the petitioner the maximum demand charges only for the period for which the power is made available to the petitioner. This claim is resisted by the respondent Electricity Board. The learned counsel on either side has drawn my attention to the judgment rendered by my learned brother Justice R.Subash Reddy, in W.P.No.7741 of 1997, dated 23-02-2007. After considering the stipulations contained in Condition No.41 of the terms and conditions of supply, the learned Judge concluded the entire issue in the following manner. “In view of the above said condition, it is always open for the respondents to regulate the power supply by imposing restrictions having regard to availability of power and the demand for it. Though the petitioner was having supply to the extent of the contracted maximum demand of 4980 KVA, but, after issuance of BPMS No. 161, dated 10-02-1997, there was restriction of 25% deduction on contracted maximum demand, and, the contracted maximum demand from 11-2-1997 was fixed at 2593.50 KVA. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the maximum demand indicator meter records the highest peak at which energy was drawn, and, it moves forward according to the load drawn by the consumer and never moves down until it is operated manually. As much as the MD indicator meter, which records highest peak at which the energy was drawn, does not move during the period when the power is not made available to the consumer, the question of proportionate reduction will not arise. To the extent of restriction imposed in B.P.Ms.No.161, dated 10-2-1997, the respondents have fixed the maximum demand and the energy quota having regard to terms and conditions of supply and therefore the petitioner is not entitle for any further reduction on the ground that there were unscheduled trippings. Having regard to the agreement entered into, the respondent-Board is empowered to regulate the power supply and the petitioner cannot seek any proportionate reduction in the maximum demand charges. The consumption bill is based on the meter readings to the extent of energy consumed by the petitioner-company, and the maximum demand availed by it within the restricted quantities as mentioned in B.P.Ms.No. 161, dated 10-2-1997. Having regard to the nature of the relief sought, the judgments (1 and 2 supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are of no help to him. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.” I am in respectful agreement with the reasons assigned by the learned Judge, who decided W.P.No.7741 of 1997, hence, this writ petition also deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also dismissed, but however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 9th December 2009