THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA W.A.No.399 of 2009 Date of Judgment: 08-11-2010 Between: M/s.Shivanandha Industries B1, Industrial Estate, Warangal Rep by its Manager Partner S.Suryaprakasa Rao ..Appellant And 1. Assistant Divisional Engineer (Electrical) Distribution, A.P.N.P.D.C.L., Warangal, Warangal District. and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA W.A.No.399 of 2009 Oral Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This writ appeal is directed against the orders of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage filed challenging the proceedings of the Chief General Manager (Operations), Commercial & I.P.C., Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Corporation Limited (A.P.N.P.D.C.L.) dated 05-02-2009 wherein the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the final assessment order dated 23-07-1997 has been confirmed. The appellant/petitioner, viz., M/s.Shivanath Industries, is a consumer of electricity with the respondent—Corporation. The premises of the appellant was inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, DPE-II, Warangal on 14-03-1996 and found that the connected load at the time of inspection is 105 HP as against sanction load of 75 HP, as such 30 HP unauthorized load was connected. Accordingly, malpractice case has been booked on 15-03-1996. While so, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Electrical, Warangal by proceedings dated 25-03-1996 issued provisional assessment notice directing the consumer to pay the assessed amount of Rs.1,22,930 + 150 +30 within 15 days. While the matter stood thus, a show cause notice dated 09-06-1997 was issued directing the appellant/consumer to pay Rs.1,14,058 + 150 +30 or prefer an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice. Thereafter, final assessment order dated 23-07-1997 has been issued confirming the provisional assessment order, as the appellant/petitioner failed to submit the explanation to the show cause notice. On passing the final assessment order, appellant/petitioner filed W.P.No.7704 of 1996 questioning the provisional assessment order dated 25-03-1997 as confirmed in the final assessment order dated 23-07-1997. This Court initially by order dated 11-04-1996 stayed disconnection on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.30,000/- within four weeks from the date of interim order, which has been paid by the petitioner/consumer. When the writ petition was pending the Assistant Accounts Officer, GRC, Warangal by proceedings dated 12-08-1996 issued notice to the petitioner for payment of short fall amount of Rs.14,500/-for the period from November,1990 to March,1993 as per the audit, which has been paid by the consumer. The said writ petition was disposed of on 09-12-2004 directing the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation within a period of eight weeks from the date of order. But, the consumer filed an appeal to the Superintending Engineer against the final assessment order which was dismissed. Against which the appellant/petitioner filed further appeal to the Chief General Manager, Purchase & Operation, NPDCL, Warangal. Pending further appeal, the consumer approached the Vidyut Ombudsman who directed to dispose of the appeal by the Chief General Manager. Pursuant to the said direction issued by the Vidyut Ombudsman, the Chief General Manager by impugned order dated 05-02-2009 held sanction certificate issued by the then Additional Assistant Engineer (Operation), Pochamma Maidan is fabricated one and the said certificate is not legally valid. As a matter of fact, the estimate for additional load shall not be sanctioned under DCW head. Therefore, the consumer was directed to get regularize the additional load which was identified during the inspection of Assistant Divisional Engineer on 14-03-1996 by paying necessary charges as per the departmental rules and also pay the difference of the fixed charges from the date of inspection. Questioning the same writ petition No.3577 of 2009 has been filed contending that even prior to the date of inspection by the 2nd respondent on 14-03-1996, the consumer is validly possessing load capacity of 75/125 HP which was brought to the notice of Chief General Manager that this Court in the earlier round of litigation observed sanctioned load certificate is a valid defence and the fact of petitioner possessing additional load of 125 HP was evident by the letter addressed by the Assistant Accounts Officer, GRC, Warangal dated 12-08-1996 demanding an amount of Rs.14,500/- towards short fall of CC charges due to short billing of fixed charges for the period from November, 1990 to March, 1993 which was paid under a receipt No.023303 dated 23-08-1996 which amplifies that even according to the meter reading register the fixed charges for 125 HP stood collected prior to the alleged date of the inspection. Therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside. The learned single judge after considering the evidence on record dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the same the present writ appeal has been filed. Sri G.V.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously contends that the learned single Judge who dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage has not taken into consideration the letter addressed by the Assistant Accounts Officer, GRC, Warangal dated 12-08-1996 demanding short fall of fixed charges at Rs.14,500/-. Once the said amount is collected, it is deemed that additional load was sanctioned for 50 HP apart from 75 HP initially sanctioned. In the counter filed along with vacate stay petition—WVMP No.359 of 2010 in WAMP No.807 of 2009, the first respondent has stated that the appellant/petitioner was given service connection for a contract load of 75 HP on 25-05-1985 and denied the appellant/petitioner applying for additional load of 50 HP and sanction of the same by taking the total contracted load to 125 HP. The additional load of 50 HP was not released to the appellant/petitioner and the objections of the appellant/petitioner were considered by the Chief General Manager (Operations), Commercial & IPC, Warangal and the sanctioned certificate produced by the appellant/petitioner is a fabricated one. The appellant/petitioner was given all the opportunities including personal hearing and its objections were considered by the Chief General Manager. The Additional Assistant Engineer is not competent and he cannot issue for additional load sanctioned in DCW/22/1986-87 and sustained the impugned order. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that since the demand is Rs.1,22,000/- and out of which Rs.30,000/- has been paid and final assessment order is passed for Rs.1,14,000/-, the Chief General Manager cannot direct to get the additional load regularized and at the most they can collect the amount covered by show cause notice. We do not see any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, since the appellant/petitioner earlier approached this court questioning the show cause notice and also final assessment order and the writ petition has been disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an appeal and raise all the objections. The fact remains that the appellant/petitioner was given service connection for a contract load of 75 HP but, as on the date of inspection the contract load was found to be 105 HP. Therefore, the same will clearly falls under Regulation 39 of the Revised Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity i.e. Malpractices. Once it is found that the appellant/petitioner was connected with a load of 105 HP on the date of inspection without there being any sanction for that, it is not only has to be regularized and the consumer has to be assessed for the excess connected load. The appellant/petitioner admitted that it has applied for additional load, which was sanctioned for 50 HP; therefore, it is not open for the appellant/petitioner to contend that the contract load should be restricted to 75 HP and collect only the difference amount as on the date of inspection and the consumer cannot be insisted to regularize the contract load with 105 HP. Therefore, the authorities are justified in assessing the amount due for the excess connected load and calling upon the appellant/petitioner to regularize the contract load with 105 HP. For the aforesaid reasons and conclusions reached by us, we do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Chief General Manager Operations), Commercial & I.P.C., Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Corporation Limited (A.P.N.P.D.C.L.), dated 05-02- 2009 confirming the final assessment order dated 23-07-1997. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. ____________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J. 08-11-2010 Murthy