THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 25522 OF 2011 Dated: 13.09.2011 Between: M/s. ALF Engineering Private Limited ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Medak District and 2 others ..... RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.25522 OF 2011 O R D E R : The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, filed this writ petition aggrieved by the Demand Notice, dated 26.08.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent as well as the consequential proceedings initiated under the A.P.S.E.B. (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act’) for recovery of C.C. charges due from one M/s. Sadana Organics (P) Limited to the tune of Rs.1,35,268/-. It is stated that M/s. Sadana Organics (P) Limited is the petitioner’s vendor’s vendor. At the time of purchase, the petitioner’s vendor by name M/s. Jai Industries was using Electrical Service Connection No.327/III with the connected load of 100 HP. However, after purchasing the property the petitioner obtained a new Electrical Service Connection bearing No.MDK 890 and since then the petitioner has been paying the electricity consumption charges regularly. However the impugned demand notice dated 26.08.2009 came to be issued in the name of M/s. Sadana Organics (P) Limited demanding a sum of Rs.1,35,268/- towards consumption charges along with penalty at 2% per annum. Though the petitioner is not liable to pay the said amount, he paid a sum of Rs.24,554/- and made a representation to waive the penalty. Without considering the said request, as the 2nd respondent was taking steps to initiate proceedings under the Act for recovery of the amounts allegedly due from M/s. Sadana Organics (P) Limited, the petitioner made representations dated 21.12.2009 and 30.05.2011 requesting to drop the proceedings initiated under the Act. Alleging that without considering the representations of the petitioner, the respondents are taking coercive steps for recovery of the amounts allegedly due from M/s. Sadana Organics (P) Limited, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. The material placed before this Court shows that the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 30.05.2011 explaining the circumstances under which the petitioner cannot be made liable for the alleged amounts due. It was also brought to the notice of the authorities that the actual bill amount of Rs.24,554/- was paid on 17.12.2009 itself and a request was made to waive the balance which was claimed towards interest. The material available on record further shows that the said representation was received in the office of the 2nd respondent on 30.05.2011. In the circumstances, the 2nd respondent is bound to consider the facts and circumstances explained by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order determining the liability of the petitioner, if any. Without making any such determination, the respondents are not justified in initiating steps under the Act. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 30.05.2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts due under the demand notice dated 26.08.2009. No costs. ​ ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 13.09.2011 Ivd