THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2325 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not refunding the petitioner the excess amount of Rs.3,30,552/- collected towards minimum charges for the period from 05.07.2000 to July, 2001, as arbitrary and illegal, and further to declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the minimum charges for the period from 05.07.2000 to July, 2001. It appears, the petitioner, which is a private parboiled rice mill, was granted Service Connection No.202 for supply of H.T.Power. While that being so, on the ground that the petitioner mill was causing pollution beyond the permissible limits, the A.P.Pollution Control Board passed orders dated 26.06.2000, ordering closure of the petitioner Mill. Pursuant thereto, the respondents disconnected the power supply to the petitioner with effect from 05.07.2000. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued memo dated 02.09.2004, directing the 5th respondent to serve notices under Revenue Recovery Act to the petitioner under acknowledgements in token of the receipt of the notices and submit the same to the office for taking further necessary action. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the memo dated 02.09.2004 issued by the 3rd respondent, it enquired with the respondents and came to know that an amount of Rs.5,83,758/-, towards consumption charges and minimum charges for the period from June, 2000 to July, 2001, was outstanding in its name. The petitioner asserts that out of the said outstanding amount of Rs.5,83,758/-, it has to pay only an amount of Rs.1,13,186/-, towards the consumption charges for the month of June, 2000, and that it submitted a representation dated 24.01.2005 to the 2nd respondent, bringing to his notice about its consumption deposit lying with their organization and requesting to refund the same to it, but till date the respondents have not acted upon the said representation. The grievance of the petitioner is that it is not obligated to pay the minimum charges subsequent to the period of disconnection of power supply to its unit, except the consumption charges of Rs.1,13,186/- for the month of June, 2000, and that as the consumption deposit of Rs.2,48,300/- and also a sum of Rs.1,95,438/- (Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.45,438/-) deposited by it in the year 2001, totalling to Rs.4,43,738/-, is lying with the respondent organization, the respondent organization can deduct the said consumption charges of Rs.1,13,186/- from out of Rs.4,43,738/- lying with them and refund the balance amount of it, but the respondent organization, without doing so, is demanding it to pay the minimum charges from the date of disconnection, and in this connection, issued memo dated 02.09.2004, directing the 2nd respondent to issue notice to the petitioner under Revenue Recovery Act. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on clause 5.9.4.3 of the terms and conditions of supply, in support of his case, and submits that since the respondents have disconnected power supply to the petitioner unit, basing on the order of the A.P. Pollution Control Board, the petitioner shall not be made liable to pay the minimum charges for the period beyond four months from the date of disconnection, as per clause 5.9.4.3 of the terms and conditions of supply, but contrary to this, the respondents are demanding the petitioner to pay the minimum charges beyond four months from the date of disconnection. Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously submits that disconnection of power supply to the petitioner unit is due to volition of the unlawful acts of the petitioner itself and, therefore, the petitioner cannot blame the respondents for disconnecting electricity to its unit and also it cannot escape from payment of minimum charges even beyond four months from the date of disconnection. As can be seen from the record, the disconnection of power supply to the petitioner unit with effect from 05.07.2000 is not in dispute. Clause 5.9.4.3 of the terms and conditions of supply, on which the petitioner’s counsel relied, reads as under: “Termination of LT Agreement and HT Agreement on account of disconnection: Where any consumer, whose supply is disconnected for non-payment of any amount due to the company on any account, fails to pay such dues and regularize his account within three months from the date of disconnection, the Company shall after completion of 3 months period, issue one month notice for termination of the LT or HT Agreement, as the case may be. If the consumer still fails to regularize the account, the Company shall terminate the Agreement within effect from the date of expiry of the said one-Month notice. Such termination shall be without prejudice to the rights and obligations incurred or accrued prior to such termination. Provided that where the company fails to issue notice or terminate the Agreement as prescribed above, the consumer shall not be liable to pay the minimum charges for the period beyond 4 months from the date of disconnection and the Agreement shall be deemed to have been terminated at the end of 4 months period from the date of disconnection. Provided further that where the minimum period of the Agreement is not yet completed by the date of such termination, the consumer shall be liable to pay the minimum charges as otherwise applicable calculated up to the date of completion of the period of Agreement. In the case of consumers who were sanctioned phased Contracted Demand and supply released for initial or intermediary phased demands, the consumer may seek deferment or cancellation of such of the phased demands which are scheduled beyond minimum period of Agreement, by giving three Months notice in advance or in lieu thereof pay three months charges towards such deferment or cancellation of such phased demands.” From the aforesaid clause, it is evident that in the present circumstances, the petitioner shall not be made liable to pay the minimum charges for the period beyond four months from the date of disconnection, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid clause 5.9.4.3 of the terms and conditions of supply, I am not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to collect minimum charges from the petitioner for a period of 4 months from the date of disconnection alone and refund the excess amount, if any, collected towards minimum charges for the period beyond 4 months from the date of disconnection, and any other amounts to which the petitioner is entitled to, as per law. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 20.01.2011 v v/ksp