IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3276 of 2010 Between: M/s. Binju Metals and Alloys Pvt., Ltd., Mahaboobnagar District. … Petitioner And The Central Power Distribution Co., of A.P., Ltd., 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.3276 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside letter dated 28.01.2010 of respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 failed to follow Clause 6 of the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Security Deposit) Regulation, 2004 (for short, “the Regulation”), which envisaged review of consumption deposit with reference to first of April of every year. As respondent No.2 failed to review the consumption deposit, the petitioner has addressed a letter to the former to review the same. However, by the impugned letter, respondent No.2 has stated that if the petitioner’s consumption from April, 2009 to January, 2010 is taken into consideration, it will not be entitled to refund of the consumption deposit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said stand is contrary to Clause 6 of the Regulation. Having gone through Clause 6 of the Regulation, I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents are required to review the consumption for 12 months preceding April of the year concerned and the subsequent consumption cannot be taken as a guide for review of consumption deposit. It has come out during the hearing that in pursuance of the interim order the petitioner has withheld the excess consumption deposit from out of the consumption charges payable by it and that the period for which the review was required to be made has already been over. In this view of the matter, while holding that the excess consumption deposit by the petitioner is not illegal and the same is in terms of Clause 6 of the Regulation, no further direction need be given to the respondents, in view of expiry of the period for which the review was required to be made. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.4308 of 2010 and WVMP.No.1751 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 02.08.2010. ES