IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.26324 of 2005 Between: L.V.Maheswara Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Central Power Distribution Company Limited, R.R.District Circle, at Mint Compound, Hyderabad, rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS O R D E R : The petitioner-Company, which is running a cold storage unit, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the validity of demand notice, dated 5th July, 2005, issued by the second respondent in L.R.No.AAO/Habsiguda/SEC.02/ACD/D.No.341 . By the aforesaid notice, the respondents demanded the petitioner-Company to deposit an amount of Rs.1,89,814/- towards additional consumption deposit for the electricity service connection provided to it under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and terms and conditions of supply notified by the APTRANSCO and the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The only contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company is that sufficient deposits were made by it at the time of extending the electricity service connection and as such, there is no reason for the respondents to issue the impugned demand notice demanding further amount towards additional consumption deposit. It is not in dispute that the electricity service connection extended to the petitioner is governed by the terms and conditions of supply framed in BPMS No.690, dated 17-09-1975, as amended from time to time, as per which, there is a condition for the industrial consumers to furnish security equivalent to two months’ consumption charges. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that while issuing the impugned demand notice, the average consumption of electricity for the preceding year from April, 2004 to March, 2005 was taken into consideration; that there was no deposit made by the petitioner-Company in so far as the consumption deposit is concerned and as such the impugned demand notice was issued to the petitioner-Company. The petitioner-Company cannot plead that it need not deposit the additional consumption charges merely on the ground that certain deposits were made by it earlier towards service line charges, development charges etc. Having entered into an agreement with the respondents as per Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the petitioner is required to deposit amount towards the consumption deposit and additional consumption deposit in terms thereof. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned demand notice issued by the second respondent demanding deposit of additional consumption deposit. As no other ground is raised, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. At this stage, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of interim order, dated 09-12-2005, passed by this Court in WPMP.No.33833 of 2005, certain amount has already been deposited. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is granted 8 weeks time to deposit the balance amount. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) 21st August, 2009 lur