IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21934 of 2003 Between: P.R.Cements Limited Managing director, Dr.K.S.N.Prasad, S/o Late Prakash Rao, Kaleswararao Road, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director (Commercial) A.P.TRANSCO LIMITED, Vidyet Soudha, Hyderabad 2 The Supdt. Engineer, A.P.TRANSCO Limited, Operation Circle, Nalgonda. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ, of mandamus declaring that the petitioners is entitled for refund of deposit made for contracted maximum demand from the date of making application for reduction of the capacity i.e. 10/07/2000 and consequently direct the respondent to adjust the amount towards the dues and further direct the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 21,36,686/- lying with the respondent after adjustment and pass any such other order or orders in the above circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: In this Writ Petition the petitioner company seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare that the petitioner is entitled for refund of consumption deposit made by it from the date of it’s representation dated 10-07-2000 and also adjust the said deposit towards dues on account of consumption charges of the electricity and to direct for refund of an amount of Rs.21,36,686/-. 2. The petitioner company has obtained H.T. category electricity service from the respondents to run a mini cement plant at Vepalamadhavaram Village of Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District in the year 1990. The petitioner company has entered into an agreement for supply of electricity with a contracted maximum demand of 2200 KVA. However, on the ground that the technology adopted by the petitioner company for manufacturing of cement has become obsolete for want of availability of the raw material viz., the coke dust, it has closed the unit. On the ground that the petitioner company has closed the unit, a representation dated 10-07-2000 was submitted to the second respondent for reduction of Contracted Maximum Demand from 2200 KVA to 1690 KVA. It is the grievance of the petitioner company that in spite of it’s representation for reduction of Contracted Maximum Demand, respondents have not acted upon the same and as such it is entitled for reduction of Contracted Maximum Demand from the date of it’s representation dated 10-07-2000 and it is entitled to seek for adjusting the consumption deposit made by it towards the electricity arrears on account of consumption of power by it and also for refund of an amount of Rs.21,36,686/-. 3. Counter-Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintending Engineer, APCPDCL, Operation Circle, Nalgonda. In the counter it is stated that the petitioner company has submitted it’s application for reduction of Contracted Maximum Demand from 2200 KVA to 1700 KVA by paying an amount of Rs.100/- by way of Demand Draft in favour of S.A.O., Circle Office, A.P.Transco, Nalgonda towards H.T. requisition fee on 10-07- 2000. It is further stated that as the Demand Draft was not drawn as required in favour of S.A.O., Circle Office, APCPDCL, Nalgonda, they have returned the said application advising the petitioner company to draw the Demand Draft as required. It is stated that the petitioner company has not submitted any Demand Draft as advised and subsequently it came up with another application for reduction of Contracted Maximum Demand. It is also stated that on the subsequent representation made, Contracted Maximum Demand was reduced from 2200 KVA to 1000 KVA from the consumption month of February, 2003 and the same was intimated vide letter No.SE/Comml/ CPDCL/D.No.363, dated 25-01-2003. It is further submitted that thereafter for non- payment of consumption charges, the power supply to the petitioner company was disconnected on 29-03-2003. It is further stated that while giving the particulars of month-wise arrears by the petitioner company on account of the consumption charges, it is stated that respondents have adjusted the entire consumption deposit of Rs.43,34,954/- and still the petitioner is due an amount of Rs.7,84,103/-. 4. Heard Mr.K.V.Bhanu Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 5. In this case it is to be seen that though the application was submitted on 10-07-2000 for reduction of Contracted Maximum Demand from 2200 KVA to 1690 KVA, the petitioner has not drawn the Demand Draft as required in favour of S.A.O., Circle Office, APCPDCL, Nalgonda. When application was made along with the address in favour of S.A.O., Circle Office, A.P. Transco, Nalgonda, the application of the petitioner was returned and it was advised to submit the Demand Draft in favour of S.A.O., Circle Office, APCPDCL, Nalgonda. In spite of the same, the petitioner company did not choose to draw the Demand Draft as required by obtaining a fresh Demand Draft in favour of S.A.O., Circle Office, APCPDCL, Nalgonda. In that view of the matter, the petitioner company is not entitled to seek the benefit of reduction of Contracted Maximum Demand from the date of it’s application dated 10-07-2000. Without complying the procedural formality, the petitioner company is not entitled for reduction of Contracted Maximum Demand from the date of it’s application contrary to agreement entered into. Further, when proper application was made, respondents have reduced the Contracted Maximum Demand from 2200 KVA to 1000 KVA as requested by the petitioner company from the billing month of February, 2003. From the statement of arrears shown in the counter, the petitioner company fell in arrears by not paying the consumption charges regularly from the billing month of December, 2002 to August, 2003 and though total arrears were to the tune of Rs.51,19,057/-, as he has not paid the charges, the respondents have adjusted the total consumption deposit lying with the respondents for an amount of Rs.43,34,954/-. As much as the electricity consumption arrears are more than the deposit, the petitioner company is not entitled for any amount from the deposits it has made towards the consumption deposit. As much as there is no proper application on 10-07-2000, petitioner company is not entitled for any reduction of maximum demand from the date of it’s application and it is also not entitled for any refund, because the respondents have already adjusted the entire consumption deposit made by the petitioner company towards the current consumption charges. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if there is any dispute on account of arrears, it is always open for the petitioner company to make a representation by disclosing the payments, which were already made. If such a representation is made, it is equally open to the respondents to consider and adjust the arrears on account of current consumption charges. No order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 18th June, 2009. skmr