IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.1071 of 2010 Between: The Ramakrishna Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor, M. Tata Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P., Limited, rep. by its Assistant Accounts Officer, Nidadavol, West Godavari District and two others ..... RESPONDENT ORDER: Heard the learned counsel. 2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the notice of demand of Rs.45,531/- with D.No.2400 dated 04-12-2009 solely basing on an alleged internal audit report for the year 2006-2007 without any physical verification by the respondents at any stage as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps and pass such other suitable orders. 3. Sri S. Sriramachandra Murthy, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would maintain that the Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Nidadavole, has no authority or jurisdiction to issue such notice of demand. 4. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, however, would maintain that in the notice under challenge, no details had been furnished and the said notice may be set aside and again opportunity may be given to issue notice afresh, in accordance with law. 5. The relief prayed in the writ petition already had been referred to above. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in paragraph Nos.3 to 7. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances, without expressing any further opinion, this court is of the considered opinion that since the notice under challenge being devoid of particulars, the same is hereby set aside. However, liberty is given to the respondents to initiate appropriate action, in accordance with law, if they are so advised. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J January 27, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.1071 of 2010 January 27, 2010 Pn