THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.21126 of 2011 Date: 27.07.2011 Between: M/s. Ramgopal Sago Factory, Rep.by its Proprietor Sri Kandula Chitti Babu, Talluru village, Gandepalli Mandal, East Godavari District. … Petitioner and The Superintending Engineer, Eastern Power Distribution of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.21126 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri P.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as Smt. G. Jyothi Eswar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Eastern Power Distribution of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APEPDCL). Having regard to the short grievance presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent-Divisional Engineer (Operations), APEPDCL, Jaggampeta, East Godavari, to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, with the consent of both the counsel this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner firm, which is a small scale industry, is provided with an Electricity Service Connection bearing S.C.No.38 under Category III-A with a sanctioned load of 65 HP. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, DPE Sub-Division.II, Rajahmundry, inspected the service of the petitioner on 14.5.2010 and detected that the total connected load to the service was 125 HP. Since the petitioner firm exceeded the sanctioned contract load of 65 HP by connecting the load of 125 HP, an assessment of back billing was made treating the said service as HT Category-I and raised demand for a sum of Rs.2,16,135/- vide proceedings Lr.No.ADE/O/JGP/F.Dock/D.No.550/11, dated 15.6.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner firm preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 16.7.2011. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order dated 15.6.2011. 3. Admittedly, since the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the impugned order, the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. Although the said order has not attained finality so far, the respondents are taking steps to disconnect the petitioner’s power supply. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the event of disconnection of the power supply, the petitioner would suffer grave and irreparable loss. He, therefore, submits that the interest of the petitioner firm be safeguarded directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal within a time frame with a direction not to disconnect the power supply to the petitioner’s firm till disposal of the said appeal. 4. Having regard to the pendency of the appeal against the impugned demand notice dated 15.6.2011 and also in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent-Divisional Engineer (Operations), APEPDCL, Jaggampeta, East Godavari, to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 15.6.2011 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till disposal of the said appeal, power supply shall not be disconnected. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 27.07.2011. NOTE: Issue C.C. in two days. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.21126 of 2011 27.07.2011 (Msr)