IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10100 of 2002 Between: S.Savitaramma W/o S.C.Chenna Reddy, Owner of Sri Sowjanya Slabs Cutting Industry, with Service Connection bearing No.449, Ramapuram Village, Owk Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending engineer, Operation, A.P.Transco, Kurnool Circle, Kurnool. 2 The Divisional Electrical Engineer Operation A.P.Transco, Nandyal Circle, Kurnool District. 3 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation A.P.Transco, Nandyal Circle, Kurnool District. 4 The E.R.O./Asst. Accounts Officer, A.P.Transco, Banagnapalli, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ or order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned consumption charges bills dt: 1-4-2002 and 1-5- 2002 for the Petitioner service connection bearing No.449, of Ramapuram Village Owk Mandal, Kurnool District, including the consumption charges of Service Connection No.404 of Sri S.C.Chenna Reddy, even though petitioner is no way concerned with the other service connection as illegal arbitrary, violative of A.P.S.E.B. Terms and Conditions of Supply and violative of Art 14, 19, 21 & 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to issue fresh consumption charges bills and future consumption bills to the petitioners service connection only, by deleting the charges included for service connection bearing No.404. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.10100 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is a consumer of electricity, vide connection bearing No.449 of Ramapuram in Owk Mandal of Kurnool District. She has questioned the consumption bills, dated 01.04.2002, 01.04.2002 and 01.05.2002, issued by the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she has got an electricity service connection bearing No.449, which she obtained for the purpose of running an industry, named “Sri Sowjanya Slabs Cutting Industry” in Ramapuram village of Owk Mandal, Kurnool District. It is her case that her husband Mr.S.C.Chenna Reddy is also having another slab polishing unit, named “Sri Gururaghavendra Slab Slab Polishing Unit”, for which, he has obtained a separate service connection under service connection No.404. It is submitted that both the establishments are separate and distinct. 3. On the ground that the consumption bills, which are impugned in this writ petition, are issued by the respondents by clubbing the power consumed not only by the petitioner, but also by her husband, vide service connection No.404, this writ petition is filed. This Court, by an order, dated 14.06.2002, while admitting the writ petition, has granted interim orders, staying disconnection of power supply to the petitioner’s unit and the said orders continued all along. 4. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents. 5. The impugned bills are questioned mainly on the ground that without conducting any inquiry and without issuing any prior notice, both the service connections were clubbed for the purpose of issuing demand for collection of electricity consumption charges. It is the case of the petitioner that as much as both are different establishments, there is no reason or justification for the respondents in clubbing the power consumed by both the connections for the purpose of demand. 6. The supply of electricity is governed by the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity, framed under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, which are in force now also. As per Clause 27 of the said terms and conditions, the establishments covered by different licenses and registrations, are to be treated as separate establishments, but however, there is a discretion vested with the Electricity Board to treat different establishments as a single establishment if they are situated in a single premises owned or leased by the same person. In this case, it is to be noted that the two different service connections are not in the name of same person. One is owned by the petitioner and the other one is in the name of her husband by name Mr.S.C.Chenna Reddy. Before clubbing the service connections for the purpose of demand, unless a summary inquiry is conducted by issuing proper notice, the discretion vested under Clause 27 could not have been exercised by the respondents. As no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before raising the impugned demand bills by clubbing the two service connections bearing Nos.449 and 404, on this short ground alone, the said bills are to be quashed. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned bills, dated 01.04.2002 and 01.05.2002, are hereby quashed. But however, this will not preclude the respondents to collect the arrears of consumption charges, if any, on the service connection of the petitioner as well as of her husband, by treating the connections as separate connections, as per the terms and conditions of supply. It is also made clear that if both the units are in the same premises and are to be clubbed, in view of the discretion conferred under Clause 27 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity, it is open to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and take necessary action thereafter. 8. Subject to above, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dt.06.04.2009 VGB