HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.19533 of 2004 Order: The petitioner has questioned the validity of notice dated 21-09-2004 issued in Lr.No.SE/OP/CC/HYD/SAO/HT/D.No.7034 by the second respondent, Superintending Engineer (Operation) Circle North, Hyderabad, demanding an amount of Rs.43,64,562/- towards arrears payable on the electricity service connection of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, a diagnostic centre, is a H.T. category consumer with contracted load of 800 KVA under Category II, which has entered into agreement dated 14-02-1989 with the respondent-company. Subsequently, it has taken an additional load of 300 KVA on 03-10- 1990 and further additional load of 300 KVA on 03-05-1995, thus making a total CMD of 800 KVA with effect from 03-05-1995. The supply of energy to the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the terms and conditions of supply. In the agreement entered into by the petitioner with the respondent-company, there is a specific clause to the effect that the terms and conditions constitute part and parcel of the agreement. 3. The petitioner made a request to the respondent-company to recognize it for treatment of the employees of the respondent-company and their dependant family members. On such request, the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board recognized the petitioner vide B.P. (P&G) Ms.No.165 dated 24-06-1992 for treating the employees of the Board and dependant family members for in-patient treatment subject to the limit of Rs.50,000/-. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the services rendered by it to the employees of the respondent-company, there were dues from the respondent-Board and in spite of the same they have not adjusted the same against the consumption charges. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that had such adjustment been made, there would not have been any imposition of penal charges as demanded in the impugned letter. It is submitted that respondents have adjusted the bills payable by them against the consumption charges payable by similarly placed hospitals. It is alleged that the said action of the respondent-company amounts to discrimination as the petitioner has not been extended such facility. 5. The Superintending Engineer (Operation) Circle Central, Hyderabad has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, while giving the details of the electricity service availed by the petitioner, it is stated that when amounts were due from the petitioner against certain bills, the same were adjusted against the medical facilities availed, but it is not possible to adjust the dues payable on each and every occasion as the same will affect the inflow of revenue of the respondent-company. It is stated that as per the terms and conditions of supply, as the amounts due were not paid within 15 days from the date of the bill, additional charges were levied. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has availed service by entering into agreement with the respondent-company as per the terms and conditions of supply framed by the Board in exercise of power under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. As per the terms and conditions, specific time is prescribed for payment of demand and energy charges from the date of issuance of the bill. Although the petitioner-diagnostic centre was recognized as one of the hospitals for treatment to the employees of the respondent-company, but there is no agreement or any understanding for the purpose of adjusting the bills against the consumption charges payable by the petitioner with regard to the electricity service connection. In absence of any such agreement or understanding, the supply of electrical energy to the petitioner is governed only by the terms and conditions of supply and when the amount payable on account of consumption charges is not paid within the specified time, the petitioner cannot escape the liability of additional charges/penal charges which are payable as per the terms and conditions of supply. Even though there is no such obligation on the part of the respondents to adjust the bills payable by them against he consumption charges payable by the petitioner, it is evident from the counter affidavit that against certain bills issued to the petitioner, adjustments were made. However, in the very same counter affidavit, it is also stated that it is not possible to adjust every bill issued, keeping in view the revenue of the respondent-company. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though respondents ought to have adjusted the amount payable by the petitioner against the consumption charges, they did not do so. Though further argument is advanced that similarly placed hospitals have been extended such facility by the respondents, but it is not clear from the material placed before this court that under what circumstances such bills were adjusted towards the amount payable by the said hospitals, in the absence of which it is not possible to record a finding whether there is any discrimination, as alleged by the petitioner. As the demand made by the respondents in the impugned letter is in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the same, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition is without merits and is thus dismissed granting time of six weeks to the petitioner for payment of the amount covered by the impugned demand. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. July , 2009 MRR