IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26192 of 2008 Between: M/s. Shiva Sagar Paper & Chemical Ltd., Akkarada Village, Jalamuru Mandal, Srikakulam District, rep. by its Managing Director V. Jagadish. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Chief General Manager / O.E.C.S. Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Superintendant Engineer, Asst. Circle, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Superintendant Engineer, Operation Circle, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Srikakulam. 4 Senior Divisional Officer, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 5 Senior Accounts Officer, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Srikakulam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not restoring the power supply to the petitioner's unit in pursuance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble A.P.State Consumer dispute Redressal Forum in R.P.No.211 of 2008 as arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1982 as violative of petitioners rights guaranteed under Art. 14 and Art. 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:M/SC.KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26192 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not restoring power supply to the petitioner’s unit in pursuance of the orders passed by the A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum in R.P.No.211 of 2008 as arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1982 and violative of rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It appears, petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Craft and Duplex paper since 1999. The service connection of the petitioner company was disconnected on 28.6.2002. According to the petitioner, the company and the respondents entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 18.12.2006, wherein as the petitioner fulfilled all the agreed terms, the respondents agreed to receive the dues payable by the petitioner company. As there was change in the officers dealing with the issue, the subsequent incumbent refused to honour the memorandum of understanding dated 1 8.12.2006 and the petitioner’s service connection was once again disconnected. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.23223 of 2007, wherein this Court passed the following interim order: “Since there is a dispute with regard to payment of arrears, a petition was filed before the State Consumer Forum, which has directed for restoration of power supply on payment of Rs.5,00,000/-. When the same was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.9213 of 2004, this Court by order dated 31.1.2005 modified the order of the State Consumer Forum and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-. It is stated that out of the said Rs.40 lakhs, Rs.10,00,000/- was paid immediately and thereafter another Rs.20,00,000/- was paid for payment of balance of Rs.10,00,000/- the Chief General Manager, Commercial, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam passed orders dated 20.4.2007 in letter No.CGM/Comml/EPDCL/VSP/ADE/ C/F.GC-37/D.No.804/07 granting four instalments starting from 9.6.2007. However, it is stated that though such order is passed, subsequently for the delay in payment of the bill for the month of June, the power supply was disconnected and in spite of payment of the said bill subsequently power supply is not restored. As much as even according to the petitioner, he has not paid any instalment ordered in the order dated 20.4.2007, I direct the respondents to restore the power supply on payment of Rs.10,00,000/- within a period of two (2) weeks from today. However, the payment of such arrears shall be in addition to the payment of regular consumption charges and demand charges”. It appears, power supply was restored on 10.5.2005 and the respondents inspected the premises within 15 days i.e. on 25.5.2005 and concluded that the petitioner had committed malpractice during the period from 28.6.2002 to 10.5.2005, and the petitioner’s service connection was disconnected. Pursuant thereto a demand for Rs.15,79,000/- has been raised even for the period while the petitioner’s service connection was disconnected. For the very same period, an amount of Rs.41.00 lakhs has been demanded as minimum monthly consumption charges on account of petitioner not availing electricity supply. The petitioner had also agitated the issue of levying minimum charges and aggrieved by the demand, petitioner approached the second respondent by pointing out the above anomaly. However the second respondent passed orders of final assessment without giving any opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent and first respondent by his order dated 22.3.2007 rejected the said appeal. Pursuant thereto, second respondent directed the petitioner vide letter dated 25.8.2008 to pay an amount of Rs.15,79,000/- within 15 days and the order was served on 30.8.2008. According to the petitioner, the said order passed by the respondent is arbitrary and illegal. In the meanwhile, on 10.9.2008 the respondent disconnected power supply to the petitioner’s service connection No.HT SKL-132 for non-payment of the above amounts though the petitioner was entitled to pay the same on or before 14.9.2008. According to the petitioner, the period for which the company alleged to have committed malpractice is the same period during which petitioner’s power supply was disconnected. Under the relevant provisions, power has been conferred on the authorities to levy malpractice charges only for a period of 10 months from the date of detection. In spite of the above, the appellate authority who is the officer of the respondent Corporation mechanically confirmed the levy of penal charges to the tune of Rs.15,79,000/-. Therefore, petitioner raised consumer dispute in C.D.O.P.No.115 of 2008 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Srikakulam along with I.A.No.154 of 2008 for restoring power supply to the petitioner’s unit. The District Forum vide order dated 29.9.2008 directed restoration of power supply on condition of petitioner paying Rs.10.00 lakhs. While passing the above order, the District Forum did not even advert to or consider the fact that there cannot be two demands i.e. minimum monthly consumption charges as also consumption charges for the same period. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred revision under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in R.P.No.211 of 2008 along with R.P.I.A.No.2393 of 2008 before the State Commission and also sought for restoring power supply to the unit. The State Commission vide its order dated 10.10.2008 passed interim direction directing restoration of power supply on condition of petitioner depositing Rs.5.00 lakhs within four weeks. Subsequently the said order has been modified permitting the petitioner to pay the said amount in two instalments. The State Forum while passing the said orders, has not even considered the fact that the petitioner has paid minimum monthly consumption charges for the very same period and that the petitioner’s unit was being inspected every month by the respondents and there was no complaint whatsoever of pilferage during the said period and further the respondents have no power to levy malpractice charges for a period beyond 10 months. However, in obedience to the interim orders, petitioner has already deposited amounts as directed by the State Commission. Though the respondents filed vacate stay petition in R.P.I.A.No.2436 of 2008 in R.P.I.A.No.2393 of 2008 in R.P.No.211 of 2008, the same is not being taken up for hearing for want of quorum. The respondents are taking advantage of the same and are not implementing the orders of the State Forum, which is causing huge loss and hardship to the petitioner company. Hence this writ petition. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 1.12.2008, directed for restoration of power supply subject to the condition petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has already complied with the said order and there is no dispute as to this fact. However, the respondents have filed vacate stay petition seeking to vacate the said order. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sri C.Kodandaram contended that in all petitioner has complied with the orders passed by the State Commission and deposited an amount of Rs.5.5 lakhs, i.e. Rs.50,000/ more than the required amount. The respondents, in the guise of filing vacate stay petition before the State Commission, cannot take advantage of its pendency and hearing for want of quorum and deny power supply. This Court can always under Article 226 or 227 can direct the respondents to comply with the orders passed by the State Commission in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The power of this Court cannot be limited to say that since the matter is pending before the Commission and whether the Commission is able to take up the matter or not, petitioner cannot approach this Court for seeking implementation of the orders passed by the Commission. Therefore, the writ petition of this nature is maintainable. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Corporation reiterated the same stand taken in the counter and contended that firstly the writ petition itself is not maintainable and secondly, any orders passed in this writ petition would amount to circumventing the orders passed by the State Forum and further amounts to allowing the application before the State Commission. Apart from this, the learned counsel argued various other aspects including the previous conduct of the petitioner company in filing writ petitions before this Court and appeals before the authorities as to disconnection of electricity and the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The only aspect needs to be considered is as to whether this Court can issue a direction for implementation of the order passed by the State Commission. The fact remains that in view of non-availability of quorum, the vacate stay petition filed by the petitioner is not being taken by the Commission and as such, the respondents are taking advantage of the same and not restoring the power supply as directed by the Commission. This Court is only concerned with the fact that relates to implementation of the orders passed by the District Forum, which had initially directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs for the purpose of seeking restoration of power supply. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner carried the matter in revision before the State Commission and the State Commission initially directed to restore the power supply on payment of Rs.5.00 lakhs in two instalments. Since the said order was not implemented, the present petition has been filed. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, directed the petitioner to deposit another sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs. Thus, the petitioner, in all, deposited a sum of Rs.5.5 lakhs. Under those circumstances, the respondents are bound to implement the orders passed by the State Forum i.e. restoration of power supply to the petitioner’s unit forthwith, which is always subject to further orders that may be passed by the State Commission in the vacate stay petition pending before it. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition of this nature is not maintainable in law. A writ can be issued for the purpose of implementation of the orders passed by the Tribunals and other quasi judicial authorities, particularly in a case of this nature where quorum is not available before the State Commission and it is not able to dispose of the matters pending before it. Therefore, it cannot be said that this Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution and direct the respondents to implement the orders passed by the State Commission. Since the petitioner company is an industry and unless power supply is there, it cannot survive on its own. Under those circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for respondent Corporation Sri O.Manohar Reddy that the very writ petition is not maintainable. Since the petitioner has complied with the orders passed by the State Commission by depositing a sum of Rs.5.5 lakhs, the respondents are directed to restore the power supply to the petitioner’s unit forthwith. However, the restoration of power supply shall be subject to further orders that may be passed in R.P.I.A.No.2436 of 2008 in R.P.I.A.No.2393 of 2008 in R.P.No.211 of 2008 pending before the State Commission. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 26.12.2008 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26192 of 2008 26.12.2008