IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.8751 of 2004 Dated: 25-10-2007 Between: M/s.Aurobinda Pharma Ltd., Hyderabad, rep. by its Manager-Legal and G.P.A. Holder Mr.K.K.Sastry. ... Petitioner and 1. M/s.Transmission Corporation of A.P.Limited, (APTRANSCO), rep. By its Managing Director, Hyderabad and 3 others. ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.8751 of 2004 Dated: 25-10-2007 ORDER: The petitioner-Company filed this Writ Petition seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents-authorities for their failure to refund an amount of Rs.3,46,597/- deposited under protest by it on 24-09-2002 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and for a consequential direction to the respondents- authorities to refund the said amount of Rs.3,46,597/- together with interest at the rate f 9% per annum from 24-09-2002 till the date of its refund. In the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that the petitioner-Company has service connection No.MDK 584, which was initially sanctioned a load of 150 KVA, and thereafter, a further load of 150 KVA in the first phase and 175 KVA in the second phase was sanctioned. As the petitioner-Company could not utilize even the first phase sanctioned load of 150 KVA in addition to the initially contracted load of 150 KVA, it sought for reduction of the load from 300 KVA to 150 KVA with effect from 20th September, 1996, i.e., the date on which the petitioner filed his letter. It appears that subsequently the load of 175 KVA was also released in the second phase in August, 1994, which was the due date. The grievance of the petitioner-Company is that the bills are issued treating the load to be 300 KVA in the first phase and 175 KVA in the second phase. According to the petitioner- Company, in view of its letter for reduction of the load from 300 KVA to 150 KVA, the load sanctioned in the first phase shall be deemed to have been cancelled with effect from 20th September, 1996. In spite of a protest, the petitioner-Company was made to pay an amount of Rs.3,46,597/- under the threat of disconnection. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company gave representations to the Member Secretary to reconsider the entire issue, but no action has been initiated. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation. Sri Manohar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation, made his submissions and brought to the notice of this Court that the representation made by the petitioner-Company is under active consideration and the respondents-authorities will pass appropriate orders thereon at the earliest. In the light of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation, this Court is of the view that, without going into the merits of the case, this Writ Petition can be disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, as to whether the said billing is in consonance with the Rules of the respondents- Corporation or not, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. ________________________________ (GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, J) 25-10-2007 lur