IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.12159 of 2005 Date: 28th September, 2010 Between: M/s Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Ameerpet, Hyderabad, rep. by its Manager-Legal. .. Petitioner And M/s Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., (APTRANSCO) rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyderabad & others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.12159 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in levying the amounts as “excess net ICD allowed in 04/05” in May 2005 monthly bills in respect of petitioner’s unit having H.T. Service Connection vide RRN848 and RRN1070 as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in manufacturing and trading of bulk drugs, intermediaries besides others. The manufacturing units of petitioner company is availing electricity supply from first respondent vide service connections bearing RRN 848 and RRN 1070 under H.T. category and the said units are within the operational circle of third respondent. According to petitioner, under Section 47(4) of Electricity Act, 2003, the respondents have to pay interest on security deposits made by the petitioner for availing supply at the rate equivalent to Bank rate as may be specified by the concerned State Commission. Further, as per the directions of A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, Hyderabad in O.P.Nos.495 to 499 of 2003 dated 23.3.2004 relating to tariff year 2004- 05, the respondents have to pay interest on the security deposits made by petitioner company at 6% per annum from 1.4.2004. In fact, in respect of bills for the months of 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005, respondents have credited by way of adjustment in the month of April 2005, however in the bills for the month of May, 2005 an amount of Rs.28,826/- was shown as debit. Hence this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the total interest allowed in respect of its unit was Rs.1,37,294/- and Rs.59,769-50 ps. in respect of another unit, however, the same was altered as Rs.1,13,975.39 ps. and Rs.54,261.44 respectively. According to the respondents, the excess rate of interest was allowed during 1.4.2004 to 17.8.2004. The rate of interest allowed for the said period was only 3% in view of usual practice adopted by APTRANSCO, whereas for the said period i.e. 1.4.2004 to 17.8.2004, this percentage was allowed. If 3% which was paid in excess is deducted, the excess allowed comes to Rs.23,318-41 ps. and Rs.5,508.06 ps. against the respective units of the petitioner. In this regard, the learned counsel for petitioner drawn the attention of the Court to Section 47(4) of Electricity Act, 2003 and the tariff order made by Electricity Regulatory Commission for the year 2004-05. Section 47(4) of the Act says that the distribution licensee shall pay interest equivalent to the bank rate or more, as may be specified by the concerned State Commission, on the security deposits offered by the petitioner for the purpose of service connection. The Act came into force with effect from 10.6.2003. The tariff fixed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission for the year 2004-05 at clause (7) also says that licensee to pay interest on consumer security deposits at the prevailing bank rate as on 1.4.2004 which is currently 6% per annum. Of course, as contended, under Section 47(4) of the Act, the Regulatory Commission framed rules with effect from 23.3.2004, which came into force with effect from 18.8.2004. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to interest @ 3% and not 6%. The interest @ 6% is deemed to have come into existence only from 18.8.2004. Under those circumstances, the excess interest paid from 1.4.2004 to 17.8.2004 was debited in respect of bills for the month of May, 2005. This approach made by the respondents, in my consideration opinion, is atrocious. Section 47(4) came into force with effect from 23.3.2004, which contemplate interest at the prevailing bank rate and admittedly, in the tariff order passed by the Commission for the year 2004-05, the prevailing bank rate was @ 6% per annum. May be, the regulations of the Commission were published and came into force on 18.8.2004, but the said regulations never said that they have any retrospective effect. Further, the rules made by any authority under the Act cannot be inconsistent with the language imported in Electricity Act, 2003. Under those circumstances, the debit of Rs.28,826/- in respect of two units of the petitioner company construing that petitioner is entitled to interest only @ 3% from 4.4.2004 to 17.8.2004 is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be declared as such. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 28.9.2010 DA