IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT:: HYDERABAD. FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.Nos.13584 OF 2001, 2776, 6248, 12752, 22938 & 33578 OF 1998, W.P.No.15156 OF 2000 & W.P.No.13806 OF 2005 W.P.No.13584 OF 2001 Between:- M/s G.S.Oils., Rampur Industrial Area, Adilabad Rep. by its Director Kanhaiyalal. …Petitioner A n d Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., (A.P.TRANSCO) Rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents W.P.No.2776 of 1998 Between:- M/s K.P.Steels Limited, Rep. by its Joint Managing Director, K.K.Agarwal, Survey No.280, Kallakal Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. …Petitioner A n d A.P.State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents W.P.No.6248 of 1998 M/s Seema Ice Industry, 9-4-57/12/4/A, Hakeempet, Hyderabad, rep. by its Partner Niranjan Singh. …Petitioner A n d A.P.State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents W.P.No.12752 of 1998 T.V.Srinivasa Rao …Petitioner A n d A.P.State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents W.P.No.22938 of 1998 M/s Shri Hari Om Limited, 5 & 6 Yenkapalli village, Moinabad, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Managing Director, Ravi Agarwal. …Petitioner A n d A.P.State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents W.P.No.33578 of 1998 M/s Sunder Steel Ltd., 21-2-9, Pathergatti, Hyderabad – 002, Rep. by its Director Madhusudan. …Petitioner A n d A.P.State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents W.P.No.15156 of 2000 M/s Rayalaseema Roller Flour Mills Limited, rep. by its Director K.C.Choudappa. …Petitioner A n d Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited., Rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents A N D W.P.No.13806 of 2005 M/s Jeevaka Industries Ltd., (Service Connection in the name of Juguar Steels, Pvt. Limited) Annaram Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District, rep. by its Director K.C.Choudappa. …Petitioner A n d Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., (A.P. Transco) rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.Nos.13584 OF 2001, 2776, 6248, 12752, 22938 & 33578 OF 1998, W.P.No.15156 OF 2000 & W.P.No.13806 OF 2005 COMMON ORDER: (Per GVS,J) These writ petitions are filed seeking Writ of Mandamus, declaring collection of development charges by the respondents as illegal and arbitrary by declaring Clause 8 of the terms and conditions of supply as illegal, unjust and contrary to Clause VI of the Schedule to Indian Electricity Act, 1910. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the records. 3. The petitioners are high tension consumers having applied for and obtained sanction of supply of high tension power with varying contracted maximum demand and entered into agreements with the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board which contemplated inter alia payment of service line charges based on the actual expenditure incurred in laying the lines. Subsequently, the AP Transco which stepped into the shoes of the APSEB amended the terms and conditions of supply and introduced Clause 8 empowering the AP Transco to collect development charges for releasing new and additional loads under L.T and H.T power supply. The petitioners would contend that the demand for payment of additional amounts by way of development charges is not contemplated under any Statute and Clause VI of the schedule to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 merely empowers the AP Transco to collect service line charges only. Thus, the petitioners assail the demand for payment of development charges on the ground that it is wholly illegal as the same lacks statutory sanction. 4. The respondents would contend that the terms and conditions of supply are not contractual, but they are statutory in nature as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions and the Board is also empowered to unilaterally alter or amend the same in exercise of powers under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the consumers are bound by the said conditions of supply which were stipulated not only at the time of supply but also such conditions that may be varied by the Board from time to time as per Clause 10 of the Agreement. 5. A similar question as to the legality and validity of the action of the Board to levy and collect the development charges by amending the terms and conditions of supply arose for consideration in a decision of this Court IN HIND RE-ROLLING INDUSTRIES, HYDERABAD V. APSEB, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS (2004(6) ALD 722). A learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 12-08-2004 disposed of the said batch of writ petitions and held that imposing of development charges is not ultra vires of the provisions of Sections 49 and 59 of the Act and the schedule to the Indian Electricity Act, following the decisions of the Apex Court and also the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in KCP LTD., GUNTUR V. APSEB, VIDYUT SOUDHA, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS (2000(1) ALD 49). The said judgment of the learned Judge in KCP Limited, Guntur was impugned in W.A.Nos.37 & 1053 of 2001. The statutory nature of the terms and conditions of supply and the power to amend the terms and conditions of supply and levy of the charges has been upheld in the common judgment in W.A.Nos.37 & 1053 of 2001, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court, both the writ appeals are dismissed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16587 of 1990 filed by KCP Limited and W.P.No.863 of 1993 filed by the APSEB (reported in 2000(1) ALD 49) was confirmed. The issues raised in the batch of the present writ petitions pertaining to development charges are squarely covered by the common judgment in W.A.Nos.37 & 1053 of 2001 and the reasoning furnished therein holds good for the present batch of writ petitions as well mutatis mutandi. 6. Hence, the present writ petitions are dismissed as covered by the common judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.37 & 1053 of 2001. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Dated 9th April, 2010. Lrkm.