THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.5527 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is no more res integra in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in RAVINDRA SOLVENT OILS LTD., VIJAYAWADA v. MEMBER SECRETARY, APSEB, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS[1], wherein this Court at paragraphs 7 and 8, held as under: “MR. J. Siddaiah learned Standing Counsel for the Board, contends that in the present case, though intimation was given, that intimation was long before the said B. P. Ms. No. was issued i. e. long before 23-12-1989 as admittedly ' the intimation was made only in the year 1985 and that, therefore, the petitioner could not have relied upon this intimation. We are not inclined to accept this contention of the learned Standing Counsel, firstly because the said Condition does not specify that it would be applicable only to cases where contracted load was exceeded after 23-12-1989. Even otherwise, in the present case, even though the contracted load was exceeded in 1983 and 1985 no action was taken by the authorities concerned under the Conditions then in force which enabled the consumer to regularise the excess load by affording opportunity even after inspection and discovery of the same; the inspection, in fact, was made only after the Condition was amended under B. P. Ms. No. 1329 dated 23-12-1989 and it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner exceeded contracted load after the B. P. Ms, came into force on 23-12-1989 though inspection was made after that date. Obviously, it related to an event which occurred long before the said B. P. Ms, was made. Under the circumstances, the petitioner could certainly rely on the Conditions in force as on the date of the inspection and, as on that date, it cannot be disputed that there was no exceeding of the contracted load after the said B. P. Ms, came into force and the exceeding of the contracted load was with the intimation of the approval by the Electrical inspectorate to the concerned Engineers of the Board. We can also look at the matter from a different angle. In view of b. P. Ms,no. 830, dated 25-8-1984, the petitioner had a clear opportunity to regularise the excess contracted load even after the discovery made by an inspection by the authorities concerned of the Board. Even if no such inspection was made at all and the petitioner failed to regularise within three months of the installation of the additional connected load as already pointed out, it is open to the authorities concerned not to take any action under Condition 39. 1. 2. In the present case, the respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner had informed the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation) at vijayawada by letter dated 26-6-1985 about the approval given by the Electrical inspectorate for the additional load beyond the contracted load. It follows that the respondents were aware at the relevant time about what the petitioner did; in spite of which no action was initiated by them under Condition 39. 1. 2 which was in force at the relevant time. From this, we have to construe that the respondents had not taken any objection to the increasing of the connected load by the petitioner at the relevant time. From this it follows that it was not open for them to take any action in that regard after a lapse of nearly five years and that too after Condition 39. 1. 2 was amended urder B. P. Ms. No. 1329 dated 23-12-1989 introducing clause (d ).” Therefore, this writ petition is also liable to be allowed in the light of the above judgment. It is accordingly allowed. However, the amounts deposited in pursuance of the interim order passed in W.P.M.P.No.7168 of 2008 dated 14.3.2008 shall be refunded by way of adjustment towards bills raised in future with 9% interest. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 14.12.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.5527 of 2008 14.12.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.5527 of 2008 Date: 14th December, 2010 Between: M/s Reliable Paper & Board Mills (P) Ltd., Patancheru, Medak district, rep. by its Managing Director. .. Petitioner And Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., (A.P.TRANSCO), rep. by its Chief Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyderabad & others. .. Respondents [1] 1997(3) ALD 14 (DB)