IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1325 of 2003 Between: Dokwal Refinery, Rampur Road, Adilabad, rep. by its Managing Partner-Mahendra Kumar Dokwal, S/o. Dinesh Kumar Dokwal, R/o. Rampur Road, Adilabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Warangal. 2 The Chief General Manager, Commercial & RAC, Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Warangal. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Warangal. 4 The Divisional Engineer, Operation, Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Adilabad, 5 The Asst. Accounts Officer/E.R.O. Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Adilabad, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari: a) call for the records relating to the Proc. vide Lr.No.CGM/COMML&RAC/NPDCL/WGL/E.Club/D.No.668/02, dt. 21.7.2002 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same by duly declaring the later part of condition No.1 i.e. that the petitioner Industry should make construction of permanent compounding walls with 8 Ft. height as per ownership document is nothing but arbitrary, illegal; (b) further it may be declared that the action of the respondents in issuing the electricity Minimum consumption charges @ Rs.55,460/- PM under H.T. Category even though the petitioner Industries case was considered by the 2nd respondent vide Proc.Lr.No.CGM/COMML&RAC/NPDCL/WGL/E.Club/D.No.6668/02, dt. 21.7.2002 in response to the representation submitted by the petitioner Industry as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. V. RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for respondents: Mr. O. MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.1325 of 2003 Order: The petitioner, a refinery, has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the order dated 21-07-2002 issued by the second respondent, Chief General Manager, Commercial & RAC, APNPDCL, Warangal, in Lr.No.CGM/COMML&RAC/NPDCL/WGL/E.Club/D.No.668/02. 2. The petitioner-refinery has obtained electricity service connection with 75 H.P. load vide L.T. Service Connection bearing No.10850 under Cat.III. There are other industries, namely, M/s. Ramdev Bala Ginning Factory, M/s. Salasat and M/s. Vijendra Oil Industry, which were also granted separate service connections bearing Nos.10780, 10786 and 16474 under L.T. category. On the ground that multiple industrial services belonging to the same management, i.e. the petitioner-refinery, are existing in the very same premises, producing the same product or related components, the Divisional Engineer, Operation, NPDCL, Adilabad, issued letter dated 31-05-2001 stating that the aforesaid units are decided to be treated as single establishment in exercise of powers conferred under clause 27 of the terms and conditions of supply framed under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. By the said letter, the petitioner was advised to switch over to H.T. supply and it is also stated that pending switch over to H.T. supply, the existing L.T. supply would be billed at H.T. tariffs. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted representation dated 17-07-2002 stating that all the four industries are owned by different managements and are indulged in different line of activity; as such there is no reason to club the said industries as a single establishment for the purpose of switching over to H.T. category. Pursuant to the said representation, respondents have issued the impugned letter dated 21- 07-2002 asking the petitioner to comply certain conditions for the purpose of treating the service connection of the petitioner under L.T. category III (A). The conditions as imposed in the impugned letter read as under: “1. Your Unit (industry) shall be independent and separate in all aspects, i.e. you should have your own gate and office, separated by permanent compounding walls with 8 feet height, as per your ownership documents. 2. There should not be any gates, windows, doors in the separating walls, compound walls, in between adjacent units. 3. There should be common passage to approach individual units without any gate at the main entrance so as to have free access to inspect the services at any time.” 3. In this writ petition, it is submitted by Sri V. Ravikiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in spite of the fact that the petitioner- refinery is an independent one, not having any connection with other units, as alleged, respondents have decided to collect tariff under H.T. category. It is submitted that it is not for the respondents to impose conditions as is done in the impugned letter, for the purpose of billing under L.T. Category III (A), even though the petitioner has already complied the conditions. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, that clubbing of different service connections of the petitioner as referred above was ordered pursuant to the order dated 31-05-2001, issued in Lr.No.DEE/OP/ADB/Comml./F, and the same is not challenged in the present writ petition. It is submitted that in view of the order dated 31-05- 2001, the petitioner is being charged under H.T. category. 5. As much as it is stated that the petitioner-refinery has already complied the conditions which are imposed in the letter dated 21-07-2002, it is not necessary to go into the validity of the said conditions. As the service connection of the petitioner bearing No.10850 has already been clubbed with other service connections of three more units as referred above, treating all the units as a single establishment, pursuant to the order dated 31-05-2001, it cannot be said that collecting H.T. tariff from the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. If the petitioner- refinery is of the opinion that it is separate, distinct and is not connected in any way to other units and is functioning independently, it would be open to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents to adjust the bills which were collected under H.T. category in view of compliance of conditions imposed in the letter dated 21-07-2002. If any such representation is submitted by the petitioner-refinery, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. June 2, 2009 MRR/amd Note: Furnish C.C. in a week B.O.