IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15285 of 2010 Between: M/s.Tangudu Giridharudu & Bros (Sri Subrahmanyam Modern Rice & G.N.Oil Mill), Borigivalasa, Narasannapeta (V & M), Srikakulam district rep. by its Partner, T. Giridharudu ... PETITIONER a n d Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam district and another … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by M/s.Tangudu Giridharudu & Bros seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring letter No.ADE/O/NPT/F.Dkt. No.15/10-11, D.No.382/10, dated 17-05- 2010 demanding Rs.34,150/- towards service line charges, development charges and security deposit for regularization of additional load as arbitrary and illegal. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.1037 of 2009 and batch dated 18- 06-2009. 3. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court in the above referred writ petition and batch reads as hereunder: “Though, literally construed, Condition No.12.3.3 does not envisage a prior opportunity, in my considered opinion, the said condition is required to be read down to the effect that if the respondents come to the conclusion that the consumer has connected additional load, a notice to that effect is to be given, along with all the relevant material to show that the consumer has exceeded the contracted load, and objections be invited. After considering the objections, if any, filed by the consumer, the respondents shall have to determine the issue regarding the factum of connection of additional load. Interpreting this condition in any other manner would only lead to arbitrariness and unilateral adjudication of the dispute by the licensee. In this view of the matter, as, admittedly, the impugned demands are not preceded by notice and an opportunity of filing objections by the petitioners, they are quashed. The respondents are given liberty to initiate action afresh after following the procedure referred to above.” 4. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the said common order dated 18-06-2009 in W.P.Nos.1037 of 2009 and batch. The directions contained in the said common order and reproduced above shall form part of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J July 02, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15285 of 2010 July 02, 2010