HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4173 of 2003 Date : 03.11.2009 Between : Sri Seetarama Raw Rice Mill, Prathipadu, rep. By its Proprietor. …..Petitioner And A.P.TRANSCO, Hyderabad, rep. By its Chairman & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4173 of 2003 ORDER : The petitioner-Rice Mill, which is a proprietory concern, has filed this writ petition, challenging the validity of the Demand Notice dated 4th February 2003, issued in letter No.AAO/ERO/TPG/JAO.IV/ NS/BSI/D.No.197/03, by the 3rd respondent, demanding an amount of Rs.1,06,773.66 towards surcharge for not maintaining proper power factor. 2. The petitioner has availed electricity service from the respondent-Company as per the Terms and Conditions of Supply, framed under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. An agreement was entered into by the petitioner with the respondent-Company, and the terms and conditions framed in B.P.Ms.No.675, dated 15.06.1987, constitute part and parcel of the said agreement. As per Clause 23 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, the power factor for the month shall be in the ratio of Kilowatt hours to the Kilo-Volt Ampere- Hours supplied to the consumer during that month. The power factor shall be calculated upto two decimal points. As per the said condition, the power factor of the consumer shall not be less than 0.85. If the power factor falls below 0.85 during any month, the consumer shall pay a surcharge of two per cent on the amount of that month's bill. However, if the power factor is less than 0.85 continuously for a period of six months, the consumer shall pay surcharge at the rate of 3 per cent on the bill amount for the subsequent month during which the power factor is below 0.85. 3. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the said variation in the power factor is not on account of any lapse on his part, but it is as a result of defect in the transformer. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned demand notice is issued without conducting any inquiry and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Though no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents, but from a perusal of the terms and conditions of supply, it is clear that the obligation to maintain power factor is on the consumer and the power factor of the consumer’s installation shall not be less than 0.85. The power factor is in no way related to the transformer. As the supply is to the petitioner’s premises, maintenance of power factor as contemplated under Condition No.23 of terms and conditions of supply depends on the capacitors, which are to be installed by the consumer. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that on account of defect in the transformer, there is variation in the power factor. In any event, the petitioner- consumer, having entered into an agreement with the respondents as per the terms and conditions of supply, has to maintain proper power factor and if it is not maintained, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the action of respondents in issuing the impugned demand. Having agreed for maintaining the power factor for installation point at not less than 0.85 as per the terms and conditions of supply, the petitioner is liable to pay the surcharge. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned demand. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, by order dated 18th March 2003, this Court granted directions for restoration of power supply to the petitioner’s service connection, on condition of depositing Rs.40,000/-. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is granted six weeks time for payment of the balance due out of the impugned demand. For a period of six weeks, no steps shall be taken for disconnection of power supply to the petitioner’s service connection. It is made clear that if the impugned demand is not cleared within the time stipulated, it is open for the respondents to take steps in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply. 6. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd November 2009 ajr