IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2371 of 2008 Between: K.V.R. Krishna Rao S/o Sri Subba Rao r/o Sreerampuram, Bhimavaram, West Godavari Dsitrict. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Operation, APEPDC. Ltd., Eluru, West Godavari. 2 The Divisional Engineer, Operation, A.P.E.P.D.C. ltd., Bhimavaram, West Godavari district. 3 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, APEPDC.,Ltd., Akiveedu, West Godavari District. 4 The Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation. APEPDC., Ltd., Kalla, West Godavari 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 Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Letter No. ADE/O/ADVD/D, No. 20/08 dated 3-1-2008 of the 3rd respondent as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and consequently set a side the same and pass appropriate orders in the matter and pass such other or further orders as may be just and necessary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.JAYASURYA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Company and at their request the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner is running an ice factory in the name and style of M/s.Siva Ganga Ice and Cold Storage at Peda-Amiram Village, West Godavari District. For the said factory, he obtained power supply under LT Category-III. While so, the power supply to the factory was disconnected in the month of December, 2007 vide letter dated 3.1.2008 on the ground that the petitioner did not pay the current consumption charges. However, when the petitioner approached the 4th respondent – Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL, Kalla, West Godavari District, for restoration of the power supply on payment of the arrears of Rs.8,570/-, he was served with a letter dated 3.1.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent – Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL, Akiveedu, West Godavari District stating that on 25.1.1996 the factory was inspected and a case was booked against the petitioner for pilferage of energy for an amount of Rs.3,11,644/- and due to non payment of the said amount, the power supply would be disconnected and that final assessment copy of the SE/Assessments/Visakhapatnam would be served on him. It is stated that against the said final order of the Superintending Engineer, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal on 23.4.2005 to the Chief Engineer, Assessment and has also deposited a sum of Rs.78,000/- and since the appeal is pending, the respondents cannot now insist the petitioner to pay the amount, which is the subject matter of the appeal. On instructions, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has to deposit half of the disputed amount i.e. Rs.1,55,000/- along with the appeal and since he has not deposited the said amount, the appeal was not numbered and no orders were passed and, therefore, the present impugned orders were passed directing the petitioner to deposit the entire amount. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.80,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs.78,000/- already deposited by him and on such deposit the appellate authority may consider his appeal. In the circumstances, since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal against the impugned demand and deposited a portion of the amount, without going into the merits of the matter, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.80,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs.78,000/- already deposited by him within a period of four weeks from today. On such deposit, the respondents shall restore the power supply to the petitioner’s factory and entertain the appeal and dispose of the same expeditiously after giving opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J