IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33506 of 2011 Between: Vijaya Lakshmi Industries, Tenali Guntur District. … Petitioner And The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, APSPDCL, Tenali Town, Guntur District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri O. Manohar Reddy SC for APSPDCL This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33506 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in directing the petitioner to erect its own transformer in respect of its service connection No.GNT 1096, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing counsel for APSPDCL. The petitioner is running a small scale industry for manufacture of spice powders such as chilies, mustard, pepper, papiseeds, masala powders etc., and is a consumer of electricity receiving supply from the respondents under LT Category III(B). Respondent No.1 has issued notices, dated 17.10.2010 and 19.10.2011 to the petitioner, wherein he has informed that as per condition (iii) to LT Category III(B) Tariff, a consumer should erect his own transformer and maintain the same by him. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to erect its own transformer within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notices. In reply to the said notices, the petitioner has submitted its representation requesting for grant of a month’s time for erecting its own transformer. As the period of one month was expiring by 18.12.2011, respondent No.1 has issued notice, dated 09.12.2011, requesting the petitioner to erect the transformer. Feeling aggrieved by this notice, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that at the time of releasing of power supply, the respondents have collected the cost of transformer and that therefore there is no justification for the respondents to direct it to install a new transformer at its own expenses. Except the ipsi dixit of the petitioner, no material is filed in support of its plea that the estimate for release of supply included the cost of transformer. At any rate, on the petitioner’s own showing, it has requested for a month’s time for installing its transformer. Therefore, it cannot go back on its commitment on the vague and un-substantiated plea that the respondents have collected the cost of the transformer at the time of release of the power supply. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as his client is in financial problems, it may be granted reasonable time for installation of transformer. After hearing Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing counsel, I am of the opinion that interests of justice would be served if the petitioner is granted three months’ time from today for installation of transformer at its own expense. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents not to disconnect the power supply for a period of three months from today on account of non-installation of transformer by the petitioner. In the event, the petitioner fails to install the new transformer at its own expense within the above stipulated period, the respondents shall be free to take appropriate action in accordance with law. As a sequel, WPMP.No.41663 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.12.2011 ES