IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19114 of 2008 Between: D. Janardhana Reddy S/o. Pitchireddy, Hindu R/o. 17/85, Upstaris, M/s. Sathya Digital Colour Lab, and Photo Studio, Trunk Road, Nellore, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Superintending Engineer (Operation), Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., of A.P. A.P. Transco, Vidyuth Bhavan, Nellore, Nellore District. 2 The Divisional Engineer (Operation), Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., of A.P. A.P. Transco, Vidyuth Bhavan, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 The Assistant Accounts Officer, E.R.O. Office, Kotamitta, Nellore Nellore District. .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in relying on the Audit objection changing the Electric Service Connection from Cat.III to Cat.II further levying an amount of Rs.1,12,945/- towards short fall fro, 12/06 to 11/07 i.e, the difference of billing in between Cast. III and CAt.II through their Lr.No. AAO/ERO/Town/NLR/JAO II/ NBS I/D.No. 1165/08 dt. 29-8-2008 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to continue the above 2 service connections on the same category and the amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid under protest may be adjusted in future billing amounts. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. P.MADHUSUDHANA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : MR. O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19114 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein was grated two electricity service connections in the year 2001 for the purpose of his Colour Film Processing and Printing Unit at Nellore. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has been paying the consumption charges regularly as per the bills issued. While so, by letter dated 29.11.2007 the 3rd respondent – Assistant Accounts Oﬃcer – informed the petitioner that the audit party raised an objection with regard to the categorization of the petitioner’s service connection and levied a sum of Rs.1,12,945/- towards the diﬀerence of billing between category-III and category-II for the period from December, 2006 to November, 2007, and accordingly called upon the petitioner to pay the said amount within 15 days. The petitioner sent a reply stating that his service connection for the purpose of a small scale industry falls under Category-III but not category-II and therefore the amount demanded under the letter dated 29.11.2007 is unwarranted. However, by letter dated 2.8.2008 the 3rd respondent while reiterating the claim called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,48,830/- allegedly outstanding upto July, 2008. As a matter of fact, by that time the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.37,254/- by Cheque No.264346, dated 11.2.2008. Subsequently, he also paid a further sum of Rs.50,000/- on 30.5.2008 under protest to avoid disconnection. In spite of the same, the 3rd respondent sent another letter dated 29.8.2008 insisting further payment of Rs.1,12,945/- under threat of disconnection. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition has been ﬁled seeking a declaration that the impugned action of the respondents in unilaterally changing the electric service connection from category-III to category-II purportedly on the basis of an audit objection is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in changing the service connection of the petitioner from category-III to category-II without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. Though no counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, under instructions stated that the respondents have issued a notice on 6.9.2008 calling upon the petitioner to make his representation as to why his service connection shall not be categorized under Category-II. He also stated that after considering the explanation, if any submitted by the petitioner, appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law. Having regard to the above submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the notice dated 6.9.2008 issued by the respondents. After receiving such explanation, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. Till such time, there shall not be disconnection of power supply to any of the service connections granted to the petitioner. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 08.09.2008 gbs