THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 10666 OF 2010 Dated 30th April, 2010 Between: Sripathi Chandramouli …Petitioner And Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Bheema Rao Counsel for the respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in issuing demand notice dated 22.03.2010 for payment of outstanding arrears of Rs.5,27,555.64 ps without furnishing details of arrears as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the purchaser of a sick unit in the auction held by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (for short the “Corporation”). When he received a demand for Rs.5,27,555.64 ps towards the arrears payable by the previous owner, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13584 of 2003. This Court, while rejecting the plea of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay the arrears owed by the previous owner as he has purchased the property in the sale held by the Corporation, this Court, however, permitted the petitioner to approach the respondents for furnishing details of arrears and gave a direction to the respondents to furnish details thereof. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation on 10.11.2009. In response to the said representation, respondent No.4, vide impugned order dated 22.03.2010, furnished the details, which are as under. 1. Arrears up to 8/2005 : Rs.1,44,319-00 2. Add:Demand raised in 9/2005 : Rs. 95,526-00 3. Less:ISD interest for 5/06, 5/07, 6/08 and 6/09 (2331-00 every year) : Rs. 9,324-00 4. Addl.Charges for belated payment on Rs.2,39,845-00 up to 3/2010-05-03 : Rs. 2,78,386-46 _______________ Rs. 5,27,555-64 _______________ At the hearing, Sri K.Bheema Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents are not giving proper details of arrears. I do not find any merit in this contention. From the details reproduced above, it is evident that respondent No.4 has given a clear break-up of arrears and the heads under which the amounts are due and payable. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, the petitioner is permitted to pay the arrears within a period of four (4) weeks from today. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.13658 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 30th April, 2010 vrn