HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No. 15641 of 2002 DATE: 01-02-2008 Between: Maddula Panduranga Rao ……………… Petitioner and 1. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations), A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., Near District Court, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and two others. ………….. Respondents HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.15641 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the disconnection of power supply in the month of December, 1994 to his three personal and private service connections by the respondents as arbitrary and illegal and consequently the respondents have no power or authority to demand minimum charges for the said three service connections for the period of disconnection and also to direct respondents 2 and 3 to delete the minimum charges they levied for the period of disconnection in respect of the said three service connections. 2. The petitioner contends that the firm, to which he was the managing partner, committed default in payment of the electricity charges, therefore, the electricity was disconnected. So far as the electricity charges are concerned, since the firm failed to pay the amount, the personal connections of the petitioner are disconnected. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed C.D.No.144 of 1996 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Krishna, Machilipatnam, and the Consumer Forum passed an order holding that the service connections of the complainant are no way connected with the firm though the complainant is one of the managing partners and the said service connections are private and personal of the complainant. 3. I n TANDURI CHENCHAIAH AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY, A.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS [1], a Division Bench of this Court held that: “Where a firm, of which T is the managing partner entered into service contract with the Board and the Board recognized the firm as consumer and it committed default and fell into arrears, to recover those arrears the Board cannot disconnect private and personal service connection of T under condition 6.14.” The Court further observed that: “Even though he was a partner of the firm, the consumer was the firm and not the petitioner. The petitioner was consumer only in respect of his personal and private service connection. Simply because he was a partner of the firm, which was a consumer in relation to other service, he cannot be called consumer in respect of the service standing in the name of the firm. It is well established that the firm constitutes a legal person and in tact it was the firm that entered into the service contract with the Board. The Board recognized the firm as the consumer, and not any individual partner or the managing partner. The petitioner as the managing partner entered into the contract on behalf of the firm. He merely represented the firm in entering into the contract. By no stretch of imagination could he be called the firm itself. That does not detract from his legal liability to pay the dues of the firm, but he does not become the firm itself. When he is not the firm, he cannot be considered the consumer in respect of the connection which the firm had. Consequently, when the firm committed default and fell into arrears, to cover them, the Board cannot disconnect the private and personal service connection of the petitioner.” By relying on the above decision, the Consumer Forum passed the said order and the order became final. 4. In the light of the orders passed by the Consumer Forum holding that the disconnection is illegal, no separate relief need to be granted in this writ petition. 5. So far as the payment of minimum charges is concerned, when once the Consumer Forum held that the disconnection is illegal, the petitioner is not liable to pay the minimum wages. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Condition No.33.2 of the Revised Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity issued through B.P.Ms.No.690, dated 17-09- 1975, which reads as follows: “33.2. Minimum charges shall be payable by the consumer as specified in the tariffs for different categories of consumers. This obligation shall be absolute. The minimum charges will be payable by consumer even if the charges for electricity is consumed, for any reason whatsoever and also if the charges for electricity is consumed are less than the minimum charges. The minimum charges will be payable even if electricity is not consumed because supply has been disconnected by the Board because of non-payment of electricity charges, pilferage, other malpractices or for any other valid reason.” 7. Though the Electricity Board is entitled to collect minimum charges even if the electricity is not consumed because supply has been disconnected by the Board due to non-payment of electricity charges, pilferage, other malpractices or for any other valid reason. 8. In the light of the orders passed by the Consumer Forum, the respondents are not entitled to collect minimum charges for the period of disconnection. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part. The respondents are not entitled to recover the minimum charges from the petitioner for the period of disconnection in the light of the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Krishna, Machilipatnam in C.D.No.144 of 1996, dated 16-07-2001. No order as to costs. ___________________ Dr. G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date:01-02-2008 YCR [1] AIR 1980 AP 12