IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7656 of 2006 Between: M/s. Sunder Steels Ltd., Bangalore. … Petitioner And Transmission Corporation of A.P., Limited, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu Counsel for the respondents: Sri O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7656 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not derating the petitioner’s Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) from 3500 KVA to 70 KVA in pursuance of letter dated 19.07.2005 and the action of the respondents in issuing minimum bills by treating the petitioner’s CMD as 3500 KVA for the period from 14.11.2005 to 15.03.2006, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to treat its CMD at 70 KVA for the said period and revise the bills. The petitioner is a H.T. consumer of the respondents. It had the CMD of 4950 KVA, which was derated to 2100 KVA in December 1998. On the petitioner’s request, the CMD was enhanced to 3500 KVA in May 2005. On 19.07.2005, the petitioner made a request for reduction of its CMD to 70 KVA. The said request was not accepted because the same was made before the expiry of the minimum period of two years from the time of release of the additional demand. As the petitioner failed to pay the bills, the supply was disconnected on 14.11.2005. On 18.11.2005, the Chief General Manager of respondent No.2 addressed letter to the petitioner saying that it is not entitled for deration of CMD for the reason mentioned above. During the disconnection period, the respondents have levied minimum charges for the months of November and December 2005 and January and February 2006. The petitioner’s request for waiver of the minimum charges and restoration of power supply having been turned down, it has filed the present writ petition. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. At the hearing, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced two contentions, namely; (i) condition No.26.8 of the terms and conditions of supply, which governed the petitioner before they were replaced by the regulations, is ambiguous and therefore the petitioner is entitled to be given the benefit of reduction of its CMD and (ii) even assuming that a minimum of two years period is required for deration of CMD, the initial date of release of the supply requires to be considered, but not the date on which the additional CMD was released. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel, condition No.26.8 of the terms and conditions of supply framed under B.P.Ms.No.689, dated 17.09.1975, which governs deration of power supply, reads as under: “26.8 - Termination of Agreement in respect of H.T. supply: The consumer is at liberty to seek reduction or termination of the agreement by giving three months notice in writing expressing his intention to do so at any time after the period of two years from the date of commencement of agreement. The Board can terminate the agreement at any time giving one week’s notice if the consumer violates the terms of the agreement, or the terms and conditions of supply prescribed by the APSE Board from time to time or the provision of any law touching the agreement including the electricity (supply) Act, 1948, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and rules made thereunder. The above reproduced condition clearly envisages that if the consumer seeks reduction or termination of the agreement, he shall give a notice after expiry of period of two years from the date of commencement of the agreement. Therefore, I do not find any ambiguity in the condition, which specifically refers both the contingencies, namely; reduction, which necessarily implies reduction of the demand/load and termination of the agreement. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the first contention. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel, it is not in dispute that at the time of release of additional demand in May 2005, a fresh agreement was entered into. The moratorium of two years, envisaged in condition No.26.8, thus requires to be reckoned from the date of commencement of fresh agreement and not the agreement, which was initially entered into while releasing the power supply to the petitioner. The very purpose of stipulating the minimum period barring request for reduction of demand or termination of load during that period is to ensure that the licensee will get appropriate revenue for making arrangements for supply of power to the consumers. Therefore, the said clause is required to be construed in a realistic manner keeping in view the purpose for which the stipulation is made. Viewed from this perspective, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the agreement mentioned in condition No.26.8 is not referable to the one entered at the time of release of additional demand. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.9801 of 2006 and WVMP.No.794 of 2009 are also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.07.2010. ES