THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO. 779 of 2011 DT.29.9.2011 Between: M/s. Sri Laxmi Industries, Khanapur, Mahaboobnagar … Petitioner And APCPDCL, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K Saravabhouma Rao Counsel for respondents: Sri O Manohar Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO. 779 of 2011 JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice V Eswaraiah) This appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 2.9.2011 in W.P. No. 24732 of 2011 in dismissing the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to make a representation before the third respondent within two weeks raising all relevant objections to the estimate made under the impugned notice dated 15.7.2011 observing that on such representation, the third respondent should make necessary enquiry after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter and in the meanwhile the respondents should restore the power supply subject to deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- out of the total short billing amount of Rs.11,04,912/-. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. The impugned notice dated 15.7.2011 was issued pursuant to the inspection of the subject service connection made on 6.6.2011 wherein the following incriminating points were observed; i) On verification of the demand issued to the consumer observed that MF for Units and MD is 0.5 instead of 1.0. ii) The failed 5/5 CTPT set was replaced with 10/5 on 09.11.2007. Hence, B.B. proved. Thus, it is stated that mistakenly the unit was charged at 0.5 instead of 1.0 MF for Units and MD, and therefore, the differential short billing amount was arrived at Rs.11,04,912 for the period 09.11.2007 to 14.5.2011. Whether the reasons set-forth in the impugned notice are true and correct is a matter to be decided in the enquiry to be conducted by the third respondent. Therefore, we are of the opinion that since the petitioner is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to project his objections, the learned single Judge has rightly considered his request and permitted him to make a representation before the third respondent and on such representation directed the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Further, the learned single Judge has directed for the restoration of power supply subject to the deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- out of the total estimated short billing amount of Rs.11,04,912/-, a big amount which cannot be said to be an illegal order prima facie. We do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise warranting the interference of this Court. The appeal fails and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J ________________________ G KRISHNA MONAH REDDY,J DATE: 29.9.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO. 779 of 2011 DT.8.8.2011