@#@#@#@#@#@#@ HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO:14054 of 2004 DATED: 07-02-2008 Between: Rama Spinners Pvt. Ltd., D.No.2-1-113, Tobacco Bazar, Secunderabad, rep.by its Managing Director Mr.Gopal Agarwal ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., rep.by its Chief General Manager (Operation) Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS @#@#@#@#@#@#@ ORDER: This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the orders of the first respondent dated 05/08-06-2004 arriving at 38674 units as short billed units for the months of 5/98 to 11/98 and the consequential order dated 23-07-2004 refusing to grant interest at 18% p.a. on various amounts as illegal and void. The petitioner is the consumer of the respondents. He was authorized to use 74 HP. The consumer has made arrangements for drawing 862 HP. As such, 788 HP is more and above the sanctioned load and the average units billed from 3/98 onwards is less and hence, back billing from 3/98. After issuing the provisional assessment he challenged the said assessment before the authorities concerned and ultimately the amount was reduced to Rs.1,16,022/-. The petitioner contends that the first respondent has taken the bill for the month of December, 1997 which was 43371 units. He has not taken the average of October, November and December, 1997. The consumption during the said three months were 31160, 36920 and 43371 respectively. He submitted that if the authorities take the average it comes to 37150 units and for six months it would come to 222902. He further submitted that he was already billed for 221552 units and the shortfall of units would be 1350 units and he is liable to pay the amount for those units only. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that clause 22.3.3.1 of the terms and conditions of supply is applicable to the present case and if the methodology provided under this clause is applied he has no grievance, but since the authorities adopted a different methodology in arriving at the amount payable by the petitioner, he approached this Court. Clause 22.3.3.1 reads as follows: “The quantity of electricity supplied during the period which the meter ceased to function or became defective, shall be determined by taking average of electricity supplied during the proceeding three months, the month in which the said meter ceased to function or became defective provided the condition in regard to use of electricity during the said three months were not different from those which prevailed during the period in which the meter ceased to function or became defective.” From the above clause, the consumption has to be determined by taking average of electricity supplied during the preceding three months from the date of detection. As the methodology prescribed under the above clause was not adopted by the respondents, whatever method that is adopted which is not prescribed under the terms and conditions of supply is not acceptable, therefore, I am inclined to set aside the same. In the impugned order dated 05/08-06-2004 passed by the Chief General Manager (Operation) the amount was calculated on the basis of clause 22.3.3.4 and arrived at an amount of Rs.1,16,022/-. Since the Chief General Manager took December, 1997 as the basis for calculating the amount and that clause 22.3.3.1 is applicable, the order of arriving at an amount of Rs.1,16,022/- under the head revised assessment to the extent of the revised assessment is set aside. The Chief General Manager shall compute the units on the basis of clause 22.3.3.1 of terms and conditions of supply and arrive at the number of units for which the petitioner is liable to pay the amount and communicate the same to him. The petitioner is at liberty to work out his rights regarding the claim of interest according to law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ 07th February, 2008 SKM