IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4877 of 2009 Between: Y. Govind, S/o. Late Y. Pochaiah, r/o. 8-2-62, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited Rep by its Chief General Manabger/Commercial Hyderabvad. 2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation City - IV, APCPDCL, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in demanding to pay Rs.16,204/- in relation to SC No. S1018872 without furnishing any particulars of the alleged dues as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Record and further direct the respondents to furnish the particulars and provide a separate Meter for the Room wherein a petty shop in being run. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the action of the respondents in demanding him to pay an amount of Rs.16,204/- in respect of SC No.S101872, without furnishing any details. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Company. In response to the writ allegations, the 2nd respondent-Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation City IV APCPDCL, Ameerpet, Hyderabad filed a detailed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the power supply was given to the premises bearing D.No.8-2-834/1, Punjagutta, Hyderabad for domestic purpose with the impugned service number. Earlier a case is also booked against the petitioner for pilferage of energy and when the petitioner approached this Court in WP No.23412 of 2007, this court granted interim order for restoration of power supply on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.4,000/- on 31.1.2008 and subsequently, the said service was converted into commercial.. The bill dated 6.2.2009 is for the arrears of consumption charges from the date of reconnection of power supply till the date. It is also stated that the petitioner has sought for installments and has also paid Rs.4,000/- in the month of February, 2009 and agreed to pay the balance in instalments. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the petitioner has sought for the details of the bill impugned in this writ petition, the same has not been furnished to him and on the other hand it is stated in the counter affidavit that the bill relates to the consumption charges from the date of restoration of power supply till date. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the respondents will furnish the details of the impugned bill to the petitioner if he requires the same. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the respondents are directed to furnish the details of the impugned bill to the petitioner month wise, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of . N.V.RAMANA,J DT.6.4.2009 msv