IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 5321 of 2001 BETWEEN: M/S Gland Chemicals (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Executive Director, P. Ramesh Kumar, S/o Pera Raju, 6-3-862, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Transco, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Shoudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, A.P. Transco, Operations Circle, Medak, Sangareddy, Medak Dist. 3 Asst. Divisional Engineer (OP), Operations Circle, Narsapur. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring the action of the respondents in treating the transformer as a part of the service line and claiming the 100 KVA transformer belonging to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to forbear from taking over the transformer and pass such other or further order as it may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY SC FOR AP TRANSCO The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner is a private limited company, which entered into an agreement with the respondent-corporation for a contracted load of 74 H.P. on 11.03.1998 and as per the agreement the petitioner has to bear the developmental charges. If the contracted load is up to 74 HP the department has to provide the transformer and the consumer has to pay the total estimated cost i.e. development charges and service line charges. 2. In the instant case, the petitioner-company submits that it has paid the cost of the transformer amounting to Rs.65,767/- for 100 KVA transformer and the cost was deducted from out of the service line charges. Thereafter, the petitioner-company paid the balance sum of Rs.66,318/- towards the service line charges. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transformer is not part of the service line and therefore, the cost of the transformer cannot be included and deduced from out of the service line charges. In fact, the cost of the transformer has been deducted from the estimated cost of the developmental charges towards the service line. He further submits that it is the duty of the department to provide the transformer if the contracted load is up to 74 HP and if the contracted load is above 74 HP the consumer has to provide the transformer. He further submits that the transformer does not form part and parcel of the service line and therefore, the charges towards the service line alone are payable by the consumer but not the cost of the transformer. 4. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the cost of the transformer is included in the developmental charges and as per the Revised Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity in B.P.Ms.No.690 dated 17.09.1975 at Clauses 6.7, 7 and 8 the consumer alone has to pay the developmental charges as well as the service line charges. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the Board Proceedings in B.P. (OPN-COMML) Ms.No.8 dated 28.04.1997 the cost of the transformer cannot be included towards the service line charges and developmental charges for new/additional load on the existing service line, therefore, the inclusion of the cost of the transformer in the developmental charges and thereafter, deducting the same from out of the service line charges is illegal and arbitrary. 6. From the rival contentions, it can be inferred that in either of the case whether the contracted load is less than 74 HP or more than 74 HP, the consumer alone has to bear the cost of the transformer. The only difference is if the contracted load is less than 74 HP the department has to provide the transformer and collect the cost and if the contracted load is more than 74 HP the consumer himself has to erect the transformer. However, the prayer sought in the writ petition is only to direct the respondents not to treat the transformer as part of service line and claiming the transformer as one belonging to the petitioner but it is not with regard to the inclusion and deduction of the cost of the transformer from out of the service line charges. Though I am of the opinion that the transformer is not a part and parcel of the service line, irrespective of the cost being paid by the consumer, the transformer shall be treated as the property of the respondent-corporation as the Corporation is under the obligation to maintain it at its own cost. Therefore, the relief claimed in this writ petition to treat the transformer as one belonging to the petitioner-company exclusively cannot be granted. Whether the cost of the transformer was illegally collected or not is for the petitioner to dispute in appropriate proceedings but not in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to question the action of the respondents in collecting the cost of the transformer in appropriate proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 13, 2008 DSK