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.33498 of 2011 Between: M/s. Relmix Private Limited Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner And The Eastern Power Distribution Co., of A.P., Ltd., Visakhapatnam & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu Counsel for the respondents: Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni SC for APEPDCL This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33498 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner, which is a HT-I(A) consumer, filed this Writ Petition apprehending disconnection of power supply for non-payment of a sum of Rs.1,72,800/- towards purported short fall in maximum demand. I have heard Sri Tirumalasetti Kiran representing Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned Standing counsel for APEPDCL representing the respondents. The petitioner’s service was inspected by the ADE/DPE/HT/VSP on 28.07.2011 and allegedly found that R-phase potential was missing in the meter and defect in M.C. was suspected and an assessment for Rs.1,72,800/- was made towards the alleged short fall of the maximum demand on account of the abovementioned defects. An assessment notice was issued by respondent No.5 vide his letter, dated 02.09.2011, whereunder he has called upon the petitioner to pay the abovementioned amount in addition to the supervision charges of Rs.150/-. It is further stated therein that if the petitioner is not agreeable to the above assessment, it may make a representation to respondent No.2 within 30 days from the date of the notice and that in such an event, the latter will dispose of the same, after giving an opportunity of being heard, if it so desires and the same is mentioned in the representation. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner and the same is not disputed by the learned Standing counsel that it has caused legal notice, dated 12.10.2011, issued to respondent No.5, wherein it has disputed its liability to pay any additional charges as assessed. The cause of action for the petitioner in filing this Writ Petition is that even though no order has been passed on the show cause notice, the respondents are threatening to disconnect the power supply. It requires to be noted that by the impugned proceedings, the petitioner was given an opportunity of making a representation to respondent No.2, if it disputes the assessment. Curiously, the petitioner has chosen to cause a legal notice issued to respondent No.5. The course adopted by the petitioner does not reflect proper and correct attitude on its part. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 had no jurisdiction to issue the assessment notice. As a law-abiding consumer, it ought to have made a representation to respondent No.2 instead of causing a legal notice issued as if to scare the respondents. Irrespective of this recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner, the fact remains that it has communicated its strong reservations against the assessment. As noted above, in the impugned notice, respondent No.5 has himself given an opportunity to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.2, if the petitioner is not agreeable for the assessment. As the petitioner has communicated its objections to the proposed assessment though not in proper form, respondent No.2 is bound to decide on the same and communicate his decision to the petitioner before proceeding further. In this view of the matter, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the objection raised by the petitioner in the legal notice and pass appropriate order. The respondents shall not disconnect the power supply for non-payment of the amount assessed under the impugned letter till disposal of the petitioner’s representation and communication of the decision by respondent No.2. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP.No.41655 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.12.2011 ES