IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 1584 of 2009 Between: M/s Lakshmi Narayana Rice Mill, Rep by its Proprietor Gurram Satyanarayana, Venkatapuram(V), D4 Section, Eluru ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Rep by its Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Eluru, W.G.District. 2 The Divisional Electrical, Engineer, Operation, Eluru, W.G.District., .....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 such other writ, order or direction declaring the notices of demand dt. 23-9-2008 by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure the respondents are adopting in respect of the regularization process for utilization of higher load and consequently direct the respondents not to make fresh demands after the petitioner’s service is regularized for higher load of 115H.P in 2006 itself. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SREERAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.1584 of 2009 ORDER: The writ petition is filed questioning the notice dated 23.09.2008 and the simultaneous assessment notice dated 23.09.2008, issued by the 1st respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. According to the petitioner Rice Mill, the 1st respondent issued the impugned notice dated 23.09.2008 stating that in the month of August, 2008, one K.M. Ambedkar, inspected the premises of the Mill and found the contracted load of the petitioner to be 85.79 H.P., while the connected load was found to be 88.38 H.P., which comes under HT Category or Cat-III B, and hence, requested the petitioner to regularize the additional connected load duly paying the required charges. The 1st respondent, simultaneously, also issued impugned assessment notice dated 23.09.2008, wherein, under the head of ‘Inspection undertaken’ and ‘Incriminating Points Observed’, it was stated that at the time of inspection of the petitioner’s premises by one M.Tirumala Devi, DE/DPE/Eluru, on 18.08.2008 at 5.30 p.m., the meter was found to be satisfactory and on verification of CC Bill, it was found that the contracted load of the service was above 75 H.P. i.e., 115 H.P., but the service was being billed under I.T. Category DA, and hence, H.T. billing was proposed from the additional load sanction, while under the head of “Nature of defect reported”, it was stated that the Short Billing was done owning to defective meter, and that in the ‘Note’ appended to the impugned assessment notice, it was admitted that the consumer has regularized the additional load in the month of 12/06 and, hence, the assessment was made from 12/06 to 25.08.08 i.e., upto 08/2008 monthly reading, and, therefore, directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,24,279/- towards energy consumption during the period of defect in the meter. The grievance of the petitioner is that the moment its service connection was regularized in the year 2006, as provided in the ‘Note’ appended to the impugned assessment notice, on payment of all necessary charges, as directed by the respondent Company, the category of its service connection shall be deemed to be converted into H.T. category and, thus, it cannot be penalized with such heavy amounts from retrospective dates. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the incriminatory points observed by the said M.Tirumala Devi, DE/DPE/Eluru, during her inspection on 18.08.2008, as indicated in the impugned assessment notice, dated 23.09.2008, are quite contradicting to that of the observations made by K.M.Ambedkar, ADE/O/T/Eluru, during his inspection in August, 2008; that in the impugned assessment notice, at one point, it is stated that from the recorded parameters, the meter was found to be satisfactory and at another point, it is stated that Short Billing was done owing to defective meter; and that though the impugned notices are issued with several contradictions, however, the petitioner, in response to the impugned notices, submitted detailed representations on 29.10.2008 to the respondents, but the respondents, without considering the said representations, are threatening to disconnect the energy supply to the petitioner Rice Mill. Hence, the writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the representations submitted by the petitioner Rice Mill, in response to the impugned notice issued to it by the 1st respondent, are under consideration. He assured that till appropriate orders are passed on the representations submitted by the petitioner, the respondents will not demand the petitioner to pay any amount. Recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, that the respondents will not demand the petitioner to pay any amount until the representations of the petitioner are considered and appropriate orders are passed thereon, the writ petition is closed. No costs _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 04.02.2009 v v