HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No. 15113 of 2008 Date: 26-10-2010 Between: M/s. Sri Kali Prasad Par Boil Unit ……….. Petitioner and Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd, Eluru and two others. ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No. 15113 of 2008 ORDER: Under the impugned order, dated 04-07-2008, the petitioner was asked to pay an amount of Rs.1,13,405/- towards back billing charges as per the final order proceedings of DE/O/BVRM/AAE.Comml.1/F.BB.No.37/D.No.1590/03, dated 19-03-2003 against ISC.No.8957 Cat-III of Bhimavaram-D1 with surcharge for a belated payment and costs. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The complaint of the petitioner is that the assessment itself was not done properly. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 17- 07-2008, passed the following interim order: “Pending further orders and without prejudice to the contentions that may be urged by the petitioner or the respondents at the determination of the writ petition, the respondents are directed to issue a demand to the petitioner, computing his liability for the period 3-6-2000 to 15-11-2000 for the units and at the rate set out in the 2nd respondent’s order dated 19-3-2003 bearing reference No.DEE/O/BVRM/AAE.com.1/F, BB No.37/D No.1590, at 24.9% error and not 41% error as set out in the 2nd respondent’s order dated 19-3-2003. Any subsisting liability of the petitioner after the disposal of the writ petition would have to be paid by the petitioner as per the result of the Writ Petition. The revised assessment shall be issued by the concerned respondent without prejudice to the determination in the Writ Petition. On receipt of such an assessment, the petitioner shall pay the amount as per such demand, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such assessment. Till then, and unless the petitioner commits a default as per this order, the petitioner’s service shall not be disconnected.” In pursuance of the said order, the respondents have passed fresh assessment order as per law and, having satisfied with the same, the petitioner has paid the raised demand thereof. Therefore, it must be deemed that the impugned order is non-est in the eye of law. The respondents cannot collect or impose any surcharge on the petitioner. The surcharge was collected only against pilferage or theft of energy etc. But, this is a case where the department itself has installed a defective meter and on the complaint made by the petitioner, the same was rectified. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V. RAMULU, J Date: 26-10-2010 YCR