THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :4981 of 2006 Date: 22.6.2010 Between: N. Prabhakara Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Asst. Divisional Engineer, A.P. Southern Power Distribution company Ltd., and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Satyanarayana Nimmagadda Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Sri O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :4981 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 31.10.2005 and 7.2.2006 issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is a domestic consumer of the respondents. The petitioner sent a representation on 2.10.2005 stating that the meter installed in the house was burnt due to heavy wind, rain and thunders, with a request to replace the same with a new meter. The said meter was accordingly replaced. At the time of replacement, the meter recorded a reading of 7113 units. The petitioner admits that his signature on a proforma was taken showing the said reading. But, however, according to the petitioner, a blank proforma was signed by him. On the basis of the reading recorded by the burnt meter, a bill for Rs.17054/- was prepared, which is questioned in this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Additional Assistant Engineer, wherein it is explained as under: “It is submitted that the bill was prepared for Rs.17054.00 based on field engineer’s recommendation vide Lr. No.AE/O/Kaluvoy/F/D249/05, dated 31.10.2005. The final reading in the burnt meter was recorded as 7113 and the consumer has consumed units upto 713. The total consumption between the last bill date and the date of replacement of burnt meter on high side which might be occurred due to wrong furnishing of recording in the previous bills by the meter reader. Even though the reading was furnished wrongly in the previous bills it may be got revised later on any date as the consumption was already used by the consumer. In order to reduce the burden of payment on consumer and due to wrong furnishing of reading in the previous bills, the field engineer recommended to prepare bill upto final reading 7113 treating the consumption as accumulated for one year i.e.11/04 to 10/05 and the same was explained to the consumer when he approached this office.” In my opinion, in the face of the explanation offered by the respondents in the counter affidavit , I have no reason to hold that the demand made by the respondents is either arbitrary or unreasonable. Even according to the petitioner, he has signed the prescribed form at the time of replacement of the meter. As evident from the averments contained in the counter affidavit, the form signed by the petitioner contained the meter reading of 7113 units. All that the respondents have demanded is the cost of 713 units, arrived at on the basis of the above mentioned meter reading. The petitioner failed to prove that the said action is illegal or arbitrary. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. However, the petitioner is permitted to pay the demanded amount in three equal monthly instalments commencing from 1st July, 2010. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 21st June, 2010 pnb