THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 9233 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt. B. Subbarathnamma with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the letters No.JAO/S.ERO/BDL/BSL/BSNS/D.No.509/2002 dated 8.10.2002, No.JAO/S.ERO/BDL/BSL/BSNS No.683/2002 dated 9.12.2002 and No.JAO/Sub-ERO/BDL/BSNS/D.No.109/2004 dated 5.05.2004 of the fourth respondent as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, in brief, as under: - The petitioner is the owner of rice mill situated in Siddhout village of Kadapa District. The Electricity Department has given industrial service connection to the said rice mill in the year 1982. The Junior Accounts Officer, Sub-ERO, APSPDCL, the fourth respondent herein, issued letter No.JAO/S.ERO/BDL/BSL/BSNS/D.No.509/2002, dated 8.10.2002, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.27,334.90 ps. on the ground that internal audit party, Tirupathi, inspected the premises of the petitioner and pointed out short assessment of service connection. The petitioner made a representation on 29.10.2002 to the Superintendent Engineer (Operation)-respondent No.1, the Divisional Engineer (Operation)-respondent No.2, and the Assistant Divisional Engineer, (Operation)-respondent No.3 resisting the demand. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation)-third respondent herein made an endorsement to restore the service connection of the petitioner on payment of 50% of the short assessment amount pending finalization of case before the Divisional Engineer, Rajampet. Accordingly, the petitioner paid Rs.17,000/- on 31.10.2002 and got the service connection restored. The fourth respondent again issued letter No. No.JAO/S.ERO/BDL/BSL/BSNS No.683/2002, dated 9.12.2002, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.19,370/-. Thereupon, the petitioner paid Rs.6320/- on 17.12.2002. The petitioner filed consumer dispute No.252/2002 on the file of the District Forum, Kadapa, claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- for illegal disconnection of the service connection. The District Forum by order, dated 7.02.2004 dismissed the complaint. Thereupon, the fourth respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to pay C.C. charges of Rs.13,000/- to avoid disconnection. Aggrieved by the order passed by the fourth respondent, the present writ petition has been filed. Rule nisi came to be issued on 15.06.2004. The respondents filed counter contending that the amount came to be demanded from the petitioner since the meter was found to be defective. The impugned demand is relatable to differential amount, which could not be demanded due to the defective reading of the meter. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was informed to pay the amount after dismissal of the case filed by him before the District Forum on 7.02.2004. The petitioner neither paid the amount nor made any representation before the appropriate authority. As such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made a representation to the respondents, but the same was remained unattended. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not submitted any representation as claimed by him, and therefore, question of considering his representation does not arise. The petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that he has made such representation to the respondent-authorities questioning the demand made by the fourth respondent. Such is the situation the question of directing the fourth respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner does not arise. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that the amount demanded by the respondent-authorities is not legal and proper. The District Form after considering the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove the shortfall assessment made by the respondents as illegal or arbitrary and thereby dismissed the complaint. The petitioner, having lost the case before the District Forum, cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking declaration of the demand made by the fourth respondent as illegal and arbitrary on the self same allegations. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 14th June, 2010 Js.