IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1202 of 2003 Between : N.Niruplast, Rep By Its Managing Partner Y. Sekhar Plot No. 12, Phase III, Jawahar Auto Nagar, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Superintending Engineer (Operation), Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Vijayawada. 2 Assistant Divisional Engineeer (operation) SPDCL, Patmata, Vijayawada. 3 Assistant Account Officer, Electricity Revenue Officer, SPDCL, Vijayawada. .....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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in confirming the order of back billing of S.C. No. 1465, Jawahar Auto Nagar, Vijayawada for the period from 31-3-1985 to 31-9- 1994 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside proceedings No. SE/O/VJA/Comml/D. No.2608/2002 dated 26-2- 2002. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed, challenging the validity of the order, dated 26.12.2002, passed in Proceedings No.SE/O/VJA/Comml/D.No. 2608/2002, by the Superintending Engineer, APSPDCL, confirming the demand made earlier vide letter D.No.191/95, dated 28th January 1995. 2. The petitioner has availed electricity Service Connection vide S.C.No.1465 in Auto Nagar, Vijayawada. On 12th of August 1994, the said Service Connection of the petitioner was inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, DPE, Vijayawada, and it was noticed that the C.Ts. (Current Transformers) of 100/5 amps were connected to 3 X 10 amp metre, and the Units recorded by the metre were arrived at with the multiplying factor of 10 instead of 20. On the ground that proper multiplier was not adopted, back billing was raised, demanding an amount of Rs.1,11,064/- from the petitioner, for the period from 31.03.1985 to 12.08.1994. Questioning the validity of the said demand, the petitioner (previously known as ‘M/s.Syamala Plastics’) has approached this Court in writ petition No.2549 of 1995, and this Court, by an order, dated 14.02.1995, disposed of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents against the demand, dated 28th January 1995, and further, respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. It is further ordered that till such orders are passed, demand made vide letter, dated 28th January 1995 was ordered to be kept in abeyance. Pursuant to the said orders of this Court, the petitioner has submitted his representation on 15th March 1995. Thereafter, having considered the issue in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition, the impugned order is passed, confirming the earlier demand. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that no inspection was made in the presence of petitioner and he was not given the copies of test reports, as directed by this Court in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.2549 of 1995. It is further submitted that asmuch as no test was conducted with regard to the functioning of metre, there is no basis for issuing the impugned demand, asking him to pay an amount of Rs.1,11,064/-. 4. Though no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, it is submitted by Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the Current Transformers are of different ratios and so far as petitioner is concerned, the Current Transformer having the ratio of 100/5 amps was connected to 3 X 10 amp metre, in which event, to arrive at the actual power consumed, multiplier of 20 was to be adopted, but the petitioner was billed by taking the multiplying factor as 10. It is further submitted that as wrong method of billing was adopted, the impugned demand was issued to the petitioner for payment of difference of bill, applying the normal tariff, without charging any penalty. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 6. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that no inspection was made in his presence and no test was conducted on the matter, a perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.2549 of 1995, the inspection report was given to the petitioner, and after testing the metre at MRT Lab in the presence of the petitioner/consumer, the MRT test report was also given to the petitioner, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the inspection report and the test report were not given to the petitioner as directed by this Court. 7. Further, it is to be noticed that it is not a case of defect in the metre, but it is a case where instead of applying the multiplying factor of 20 having regard to the ratio of the CT, respondents have applied the multiplying factor of 10. Asmuch as there is no defect in the metre, there is no need to test it, and the test was confined only to the noted ratio of CTs, which were connected to the metre. When such MRT test disclosed that CTs having ratio of 100/5 amps were connected to the metre, it cannot be said that the impugned demand is illegal. It is also not in dispute that if the CT apparatus having ratio of 100/5 amps were connected to the metre, the relevant multiplying factor is 20, but not 10. In that view of the matter, respondents have rightly issued the demand for the short-billed amount. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned proceedings, demanding an amount of Rs.1,11,064/- towards back-billing for the consumption of energy, which was not billed due to mistake in applying the multiplying factor. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 8. At the stage of admission, this Court granted interim orders, staying disconnection of power supply to the petitioner, subject to condition of depositing 50% of the demanded amount. In that view of the matter, petitioner is granted two months time for payment of the balance amount. Till such time, respondents shall not disconnect power supply to the petitioner on account of default of demand in question. If the aforesaid balance amount is not paid by the petitioner within the time stipulated, it is open for the respondents to take steps for recovery of the amount in question, in accordance with law. 9. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd June 2009 Nsr/ajr