THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2467 OF 2005 Dated: 29-12-2010 Between: M/s.Telangana Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., A company regd. Under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its Regd. Office and mills at Narsapur Road, P O Balanagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director Ram Gopal Patwari …Petitioner AND Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., (Formerly APSEB) Mint compound, Hyderabad through its Superintending Engineer, Operation North Circle & Others. Respondents. This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2467 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in Letter No.SE/OP/north/Hyd/SAO/JAO/HT-IV/D.No.449, dated 3.2.2005 demanding an amount of Rs.27,62,894.74 within one week, otherwise threatening to recover the same under the Revenue Recovery Act and the consequential proceedings in letter No.SE/OP/North/Hyd/ SAO/JAO/HT-IV/D-No.450, dated 3.2.2005 addressed to the 2nd respondent not to entertain any transactions in registration of land of the petitioner at Chinthal Village in Sy.Nos.145,147, 148 and 149 of Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal Taluk, till the amount claimed by them is not paid by the petitioner and stoppage of registration of land by the 2nd respondent thereof etc. as the same is arbitrary, unjust and illegal and in violation of the orders, dated 1.1.2002 of the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of SICA, apart from being violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 300-A of the Constitution of India and the provisions of SICA (Section 22(1)) and the judgments rendered by this Court and the Supreme Court. Under the impugned proceedings, dated 3.2.2005, the petitioner was asked to clear the dues against the HT service connection No.356 within one week, otherwise, action will be initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act as the relief sought in clause 7.06(ii) of BIFR order, dated 1.1.2002 in case No.93/93 cannot be considered in view of the financial position of APCPDCL and realizable value of cost of land which is to be sold as per rehabilitation scheme sanctioned by BIFR vide order, dated 1.1.2002. In nutshell, the respondents mean to say that the BIFR award passed in case No.93/93 granting exemption of payment of minimum charges against service connection No.356 of M/s.Telangana Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., Balanagar are not exemptible and the award passed by BIFR cannot be complied with. The facts are not much in dispute. The petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.11,03,750/- towards arrears of electricity bills against the above said service connection without monthly minimum charges, which were used to be collected to recover capital expenditure incurred on installation of power lines etc. by the respondents. According to the respondents, an amount of Rs.3,61,201/- was waived towards the minimum consumption charges for June and July 1997 and the remaining amount of Rs.11,02,150/- was paid in two instalments as per BIFR scheme and the conditions stipulated therein. Nowhere it is stated that the petitioner has not paid the amount of Rs.11,02,150/-. However, learned counsel for the petitioner placed before this court a letter issued by the Superintending Engineer, Operation/North Circle, Hyderabad, dated 22.9.2005 to show that the petitioner has paid Rs.11,01,959/-. However, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that such an amount was paid. Be that as it may, the dispute now revolves around payment of Rs.3,61,201/-. It has to be seen whether this amount has been waived under award No.93/93 of BIFR. Clause 7.06(ii) of the award passed by the BIFR reads as under: “(ii) APSEB To accept payment of Electricity dues in 2 equal annual instalments from 2001-02 to 2002-03 exemption of power cut at Sadashivpet unit as per the State Govt. Policy for sick units, to waive minimum demand charges/minimum units charges and penal interest, penalties etc., levied by the APSEB after disconnection of power supply to both the units.” This shows that exemption of power cut at Sadasivapet unit as per the State Policy for sick units, to waive minimum demand charges/minimum unit charges and penal interest, penalties etc., levied by APSEB after disconnection of power supply to both the units. The respondent No.1 is also party to the award No.93/93 passed by BIFR. Therefore, the contention that the amount of waiving of minimum charges during the period of disconnection can be collected by the respondents on the ground that they are sustaining financial loss etc., cannot be countenanced unless and until the award passed by BIFR has been challenged by the respondents if it is permissible under law. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has paid the total dues payable to the respondents and the amount of Rs.3,61,201/- is waived under the award of BIFR. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. However, it is made clear that apart from Rs.11,01,959/- and Rs.3,61,201/-, if any other amount is due, it is always open for the respondents to recover the same from the petitioner after following due process of law. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU,J DECEMBER 29, 2010 Tsr