THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2920 OF 2003 DATED 26TH JULY, 2011 BETWEEN M/s.S.D.V.Steels Ltd., rep by its Managing Director Sri B.Umamaheswara Rao, Vijayawada …Petitioner And The Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Tirupathi and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2920 OF 2003 ORDER: The petitioner company assails the action of the Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APSPDCL) in levying voltage surcharge upon it for the months of April and May, 2002 and seeks a consequential direction to APSPDCL to forbear from collecting the said voltage surcharge. This Court, by order dated 18.02.2003, directed interim stay of disconnection of power supply to the petitioner company subject to it paying 30% of the demanded amount within four weeks. The petitioner company, involved in the manufacture of steel ingots and rolled products, availed High Tension (HT) power supply from the APSPDCL with a Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) of 1450 KVA. It sought deration of its CMD from 1450 KVA to 650 KVA from the billing month of August, 2001. However, for the billing months of April and May, 2002 the petitioner company was levied low voltage surcharge of Rs.2,44,132.85 ps. and Rs.2,47,601.94 ps. respectively. This voltage surcharge was levied on the ground that the petitioner company had exceeded 1500 KVA while receiving power at 11 KV voltage. According to the petitioner company, it was entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions of the Tariff Order, 2001-02 whereby it could avail upto 2500 KVA subject to its fulfilling three conditions, viz., (i) that it should have an exclusive dedicated feeder from the sub- station; (ii) that it should pay the full cost of the service line as per the standards specified by the APTRANSCO/ DISCOMS including take off arrangements at sub-station; and (iii) that it should not use captive generation except as permitted by the APERC. The petitioner company claimed that it fulfilled all the three requirements stated above and was therefore not liable to be burdened with the surcharge for the months of April and May, 2002. The APSPDCL stated in its counter that as per the provisions of the Tariff Order, the petitioner company had to avail supply upto 1500 KVA in 11 KV. As regards the claim of the petitioner company that it could avail the benefits of the amended provisions of the Tariff Order, whereby it could avail supply upto 2500 KVA, the APSPDCL contended that the petitioner company had only paid service line charges and not the charges payable for take off arrangements at the sub-station. It therefore denied the entitlement of the petitioner company to avail upto 2500 KVA. Once the amended provisions stood excluded, it is the case of the APSPDCL that the petitioner company was not entitled to any relaxation and therefore voltage surcharge was rightly levied by it. The details of the payments made by the petitioner company were separately filed as material papers. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned standing counsel for the APSPDCL explained the break-up of the payment of Rs.30,60,600/- made by the petitioner company towards various components of the service line charges, which demonstrated that no payment had been made towards the take off arrangements at the sub- station. In the light of the detailed explanation in this regard put forth by the learned standing counsel, Sri N.V.Sumanth, learned counsel for the petitioner company, sought time to ascertain the correctness of this computation and verify whether his client had made the required payments towards the take off arrangements at the sub-station. Today, Sri N.V.Sumanth, learned counsel, fairly stated that though his client claimed that such payments had been made, there was no record of the same. In so far as the payment of Rs.30,60,600/- is concerned, the explanation put forth by the learned standing counsel is admitted to be correct. Thus, as matters stand, there is no proof of the petitioner having complied with the second condition of paying the full cost of the service line charges including take off arrangements at the sub-station, which is a condition precedent for availing relaxation under the amended provisions of the Tariff Order, whereby the petitioner company could avail upto 2500 KVA with 11 KV voltage. Once the petitioner company failed to fulfill the requirements in this regard, it can have no redressable grievance with regard to the levy of voltage surcharge by the APSPDCL once it exceeded the limit of 1500 KVA. The action of the APSPDCL in collecting low voltage surcharge for the months of April and May, 2002 cannot therefore be said to be illegal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petition shall stand dismissed as infructuous in the light of this final order. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 26TH JULY, 2011. VGSR/PGS