IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 19696 of 2003 Between: M/s. SGR Chemicals Private Limited, rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Mr. Mukesh Chandra, S/o. Sri Gopal, with its Office & Factory on Plot No. 9-A, Road No.9, IDA Nacharam, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, A.P. Transco, rep. by its Chief General Manager (Operation), Mint Compound, Hyderabad - 500 004. 2 The Chief Engineer, Electricity (Operation), A.P. Transco, Metro Zone, Mint Compound, Hyderabad - 500 004. 3 The Superintending Engineer (Assessments), A.P. Transco, Dwarakapuri Colony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, A.P. Transco, Uppal, Hyderabad. 5 The Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, R.North-I, Hubsiguda, Hyderabad - 500 007. .....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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dt: 14.08.2003 of the 1st Respondent in its proceedings vide letter No. CGM/HZ/SMRT/D.No. 407/2003 confirming the order of the 3rd Respondent in its proceedings dt: 31.01.1998 as illegal, unjust and arbitrary by setting aside the same with a consequential direction to the Respondents, to accept the invoices as produced by the petitioner as true and genuine by declaring the provisional assessment notice dt: 15.09.1995 estimating the value of energy misused at Rs. 1,58,910/- by 4th Respondent as most unjust and illegal and without any basis and not binding on the petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ERANKI.PHANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.AJAY KUMAR (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION No. 19696 of 2003 O R D E R: This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the order of the first respondent dated 14-08-2003 confirming the order of the third respondent dated 31-01-1998 is illegal, unjust and arbitrary. The petitioner is a consumer of the respondent and was sanctioned a load of 74 HP at the time of giving service connection. The respondent authorities inspected the unit of the petitioner on 08- 09-1995 and found newly connected equipment in running condition and found the petitioner exceeded the contracted load and the connected load at the time of inspection which was noted as 126.21 HP as against sanctioned load of 74 HP. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner declared lay of during the period from 18- 01-1995 to 31-03-1995 and after stopping the manufacture activity, undertook job work for manufacture of Trimethoprim during May 1995 on trial basis. To start the said production, the petitioner used machinery supplied for manufacture of the product of CCIL and in the said process, one bore well of 2 HP, one water pump of one 1 HP and heating and light (Oven, heater, M.Furnace and lighting) of 2 HP and other machinery of the petitioner was kept out of use. The petitioner alleged to have addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Central Excise on 28-04-1995 seeking permission for undertaking the job work. The petitioner alleged to have received the equipment on 02-05-1995 and in support of it he filed some documents and contended that there is no possibility of his using the electricity prior to the receipt of the machinery. Therefore, the value of the energy has been wrongly calculated and the demand notice was issued to the petitioner. The concerned authorities made assessment and issued notice to the petitioner directing him to pay Rs.1,59,060/-. At the time of hearing of the petition, the petitioner produced the trip sheet and other documents to show that the machinery was received subsequent to 26-04-1995. He further contended that there was fire accident in the factory and the matter was reported to the police and a crime was also registered by the police. Therefore, there was no possibility of the petitioner using the energy for the connected load. Therefore, he requested to quash the proceedings. The assessing authorities have taken one year period in assessing the amount payable by the petitioner, but in the light of the material placed, it is desirable to direct the respondents to once again consider the objections raised by the petitioner with reference to those documents and the period of consumption may also be fixed while passing the assessment order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________________ G.YETHIRAJULU,J Date:27-02-2008 KLP