IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 7701 of 2004 Between: Gollapalli Hussain, S/o Chennai, R/o D.No.17/292, Nadimpalli, Proddatur Town, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Engineer (Operations), Southern Power Distribution Corporation of A.P.Ltd. Cuddapah. 2 The Superintending Engineer (Operation), Southern Power Distribution Corporation of A.P.Ltd. Cuddapah. 3 The Divisional Engineer (Operations) Southern Power Distribution Corporation of A.P.Ltd. Proddatur, Cuddappah District. 4 The Cuddapah District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. represented by its Liquidator / General Manager, Vijaya Milk Dairy, Nandyal, Kurnool 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 to pass an order or direction or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution fo India, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in not refunding the amounts deposited by the petitioner as bad, illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amounts of Rs.1,10,618.00; Rs.2,70,000.00 and Rs.80,000.00 deposited by the petitioner without any further delay. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7701 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount paid/deposited by him for availing power supply to his poultry unit. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Sema Poultry Seeds Ltd. He took existing lease on Mydukur Cattle Feed Plant belonging to fourth respondent on 29.04.1995 for a period of thirty-six months. The lease, however, did not come into force because unit of fourth respondent required repairs and power supply which was not released. As requested by the lessor, the petitioner deposited Rs.1,10,618/- and Rs.2,70,000/- on 22.05.1996 with third respondent. He also deposited an amount of Rs.80,000/- on 19.08.1996 for providing electricity supply. Third respondent, however, did not release the electricity supply. The petitioner, therefore, handed over the unit to fourth respondent on 17.01.2001 and made a request for refund of the deposit to third respondent, in vain. Respondent Nos.1 to 3, have not filed any counter-aﬃdavit even after lapse of about four years. The General Manager of fourth respondent ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit admitting that as per the lease agreement dated 29.04.1995, the petitioner made payment of Rs.3,40,000/- directly to the electricity to third respondent. It is also alleged that as the unit was handed over to the petitioner in January, 1996, he is liable to pay the lease amount of Rs.61,20,000/- and also damages for loss of machinery valued at Rs.6,81,578/-. Learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, namely, SPDCL, submits that after receiving the application of the petitioner for supply of power, SPDCL laid electricity lines and advised the petitioner to install a transformer. He did not do so. Therefore, on 15.12.2001 the petitioner was asked to pay a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- towards UCM (unconnected meter) charges for the period from 01.01.1997 to 30.11.2001. In view of this amounts were withheld. He, however, does not dispute that the petitioner’s legal notice dated 12.04.2004 issued prior to ﬁling of the writ petition was not attended to. There is a dispute in the case as to whether respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were ready to release the supply of electricity to the petitioner’s unit which itself was obtained by him under lease to fourth respondent. This matter has to be looked into by second respondent. The petitioner has already made a representation through his lawyer seeking refund of the amounts. The respondents may consider the same in accordance with the terms and conditions of the supply and decide whether they are entitled to demand UCM charges for the period during which there was no actual physical delivery of the electricity supply to the petitioner unit. This exercise may be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09th September, 2008 GHN To 1 The Chief Engineer (Operations), Southern Power Distribution Corporation of A.P.Ltd. Cuddapah. 2 The Superintending Engineer (Operation), Southern Power Distribution Corporation of A.P.Ltd. Cuddapah. 3 The Divisional Engineer (Operations) Southern Power Distribution Corporation of A.P.Ltd. Proddatur, Cuddappah District. 4 The Cuddapah District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. represented by its Liquidator / General Manager, Vijaya Milk Dairy, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSR}