IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18201 of 2006 Between: D. Jaipal … Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Co., Ltd., Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N. Pramod Counsel for the respondents: Sri O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18201 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notice dated 03.08.2006 issued by respondent No.2. I have heard Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Under the impugned notice, the petitioner was called upon to pay Rs.2,67,180=50 ps towards the purported electricity consumption charges by stating therein that if the petitioner fails to pay the said amount within 7 days, by treating the said notice as attachment notice, his movable and immovable properties will be attached by respondent No.1 under the provisions of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short, “the 1864 Act”) for recovery of the said outstanding amount. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced two contentions. The first, that under sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, “the 2003 Act”) the recovery is barred by limitation and the second, that the impugned notice is not in the form as prescribed under the provisions of the 1864 Act. With regard to the first contention, the learned Standing counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Kusumam Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and others[1]. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 56(2) will not apply to the dues existing prior to coming into force of the 2003 Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that in the light of the said judgment, the first contention advanced by him cannot be sustained. With regard to the second contention, a perusal of the impugned notice shows that as a prelude to invocation of provisions of the 1864 Act respondent No.2 issued the said notice. While undoubtedly respondent No.2 is bound to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the 1864 Act, the impugned notice cannot be invalidated on the ground that it does not conform to the prescribed proforma. In my opinion, the words “by treating this notice as attachment notice” contained in the impugned notice cannot be understood to mean that by the said notice the properties of the petitioner were attached. The petitioner was only put to notice by respondent No.2 that if he does not pay the arrears, respondent No.2 will take recourse to the provisions of the 1864 Act for recovery of the amounts by attachment etc. In this view of the matter, there is no need for interference with the demand notice. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to question the action, if any taken for recovery of the arrears by raising all legally permissible objections except the plea raised in this writ petition that recovery of arrears is barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the 2003 Act. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.22862 of 2006 and WVMP.No.2838 of 2009 are also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.06.2010. ES [1] AIR 2008 SC 2796