THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 11588 OF 2005 Dated 8th July, 2010 Between: Peram Sunki Reddy …Petitioner And The Superintendent Engineer and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None appeared Counsel for the respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 05.05.2005, whereunder a sum of Rs.1,68,570/- was demanded towards consumption and other related charges. The petitioner is a consumer of electricity receiving power supply from the respondents for industrial purpose. It appears that during one of the inspections, it was realised that wrong multiplying factor (MF-1) was recorded instead of recording MF-2 in the meter reading book. On that premise, revised electricity bills were issued for the period from 05.01.2004 to 23.01.2005. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and the main plea raised by the petitioner is that before issuing the impugned demand, the respondents failed to issue a notice and opportunity of hearing to him. No counter-affidavit is filed. At the hearing, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, has fairly conceded that the respondents should have issued a notice before issuing the demand notice. As the respondents failed to issue a notice to the petitioner, the impugned demand cannot be sustained. Accordingly, letter No.AAO/ERO/BNP/D.No.379/2005 dated 05.05.2005 is quashed. Liberty is given to the respondents to take fresh action for recovery of the amounts by issuing a notice calling for explanation from the petitioner and passing appropriate order after considering the explanation, if any, filed by the petitioner. Till completion of this process, the amount paid by the petitioner in pursuance of interim order dated 24.05.2005 shall remain with the respondents, which will be subject to the result of the fresh action. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 8th July, 2010 vrn