IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.10197 of 2001 Between: Feroke Tile Works, Rajahmundry, Rep. by Managing Director, B.Ravindra Kumar, S/o.Hanumaiah R/o. Rajahmundry, E.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P.TRANSCO., Rajahmundry, E.G.District. .....RESPONDENT 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 issua a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the impugned notice in Lr.No.SE/O/RJY/HT/A1/D.No.238/2001, dt. 27.4.2001 as illegal, arbitrary and null and void and for a consequential order directing the respondent to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the said impugned notice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.10197 of 2001 ORDER: The controversy involved in the present writ petition is only with regard to demand made by the respondent under the impugned letter dated 27.04.2001 demanding the petitioner to pay monthly minimum charges amounting to Rs.4,95,489/- for the period from 02.06.1999 i.e. from the date of termination of H.T.agreement till the date of restoration. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner company was engaged in manufacturing stoneware pipes and other clay products, and electricity supply to the petitioner company was released on 18.07.1983 on execution of HT agreement dated 05.05.1983. The power supply to the petitioner company was disconnected on 03.02.1999 for non-payment of C.C.bill for 12/98, and as the petitioner has not come forward to pay the dues to restore the power supply, the H.T. agreement was terminated with eﬀect from 02.06.1999 after issuing one month notice and after complying with other formalities. It is not in dispute that as far as the liability of the petitioner is concerned either for payment of dues or for payment of minimum charges for the disconnected period and also for payment of reconnection charges, the petitioner is liable to pay the entire arrears up to the date of termination. Though the petitioner service connection was disconnected, the petitioner still liable to pay the minimum charges, as per the agreement, up to the date of termination. Admittedly, the agreement of the petitioner was terminated by proceedings dated 02.06.1999 with retrospective effect. It is stated that for non-payment of the H.T.C.C bills amounting to Rs.1,62,831/- for the period from 12/92 to 4/99 the power supply to the petitioner company was disconnected on 03.02.1999 and accordingly, the respondent issued a notice dated 10.05.1999 requesting the petitioner to pay the said entire dues along with reconnection charges of Rs.300/- within 30 days from the date of the said letter, failing which the H.T. agreement will be terminated as per Clause-26.10 of the terms and conditions of supply. Questioning the said action of the respondent in disconnecting the power supply for non-payment of H.T.C.C bills amounting Rs.1,62,831/- for the period from 12/92 to 4/99, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.9563/2000 and this Court by order dated 08.06.2000 and thereafter by order dated 18.10.2000 directed for restoration of power supply forthwith and pursuant to the said order, the petitioner paid the entire dues of Rs.1,62,831/- as demanded by letter dated 10.05.1999 along with reconnection charges of Rs.300/- and made a representation on 10.08.2000 requesting the respondent to reconnect the service. It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid orders of this Court dated 18.10.2000 and as the petitioner paid the entire dues, power supply to the petitioner company was restored from 25.10.2000 and accordingly, the respondent issued proceedings No.HT/A1/D.No.825/2k, dated 08.12.2000 stating that the agreement was terminated vide proceedings dated 22.06.1999 and the said agreement is deemed to have been revived with eﬀect from 25.10.2000 i.e. from the date of reconnection of power supply. In view of the interim orders dated 18.10.2000, as no further orders are required to be passed, this Court closed W.P.9563/2000 by order dated 26.02.2001. It is stated that thereafter, the respondent demanded the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,95,489/- in six monthly equal instalments at the rate of Rs.82,582/- per month along with regular C.C. bills to regularize the transaction as per the orders of this Court or otherwise the H.T. service of the petitioner is liable to be disconnected without any further notice. In the impugned letter dated 27.04.2001, it is stated that H.T. agreement was terminated by proceedings dated 22.06.1999 with eﬀect from 02.06.1999 and pursuant to the orders of this Court, power supply was restored reviving the H.T. agreement by proceedings dated 08.12.2000 and therefore, the petitioner has to pay the minimum charges payable for the termination period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of restoration of power supply. The petitioner questions the said letter dated 27.04.2001 in demanding to pay the minimum charges from 02.06.1999 i.e. from the date of deemed termination till 25.10.2000 i.e.,the date of restoration of power supply. The learned standing counsel Sri O.Manohar Reddy, appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner having questioned the termination order and having obtained interim order for restoration of power supply subject to payment of entire arrears, he is not entitled for restoration of power supply unless his old agreement stands revived, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was permanent termination of the agreement, but the termination of the agreement shall be assumed and presumed that it was under suspension. It is further stated that once the HT agreement is terminated and lines are dismantled, a fresh connection will be given only on paying developmental charges etc. But in the instant case, it was only revival of the old agreement and therefore, the petitioner has to pay the minimum monthly charges. It is not in dispute that under Clause-26.10 of the revised terms and conditions of supply of electricity, the termination of H.T. agreement can be made if the consumer failed to pay the current bills. It is also not in dispute that when the power supply is disconnected during pendency of the agreement for any default, the consumer has to pay the minimum monthly charges even for the disconnected period till the date of restoration. But once agreement is terminated, under Clause 26.9 of the revised terms and conditions of supply of electricity, the consumer is liable to pay all dues under the agreement as on date of the termination alone. There is no provision entitling the respondent for collection of any sum after termination of the agreement. Once the agreement was terminated, the relationship between the parties will discontinue. Therefore, any liability must be prior to the date of termination, but not for the period subsequent to the termination. The clauses relied upon by the respondents i.e. Clause 33 and 42 will apply only in respect of cases where the agreement is subsisting, but not for the period subsequent to the termination of the agreement. In the instant case, the HT agreement of the petitioner was terminated by proceedings dated 22.06.1999 and the said termination proceedings was not at all questioned by the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondent could have resisted for restoration of the service connection, but under the threat of contempt, it appears that the service connection was restored with eﬀect from 25.10.1999 without imposing any conditions that the petitioner has to pay the minimum charges as per the agreement till the date of restoration. In fact, the proceedings of the respondent dated 08.12.2000 goes to show that the agreement is deemed to have been revived with eﬀect from 25.10.2000 i.e. from the date of reconnection alone. If that be so, it cannot be assumed and presumed that there was no termination of the agreement from 22.06.1999 to 25.10.2000. Once the agreement was terminated, the relations between the parties will be disconnected and it is for the respondent to divert the power supply to other consumers as there cannot be any obligation on the part of the department to supply the power in respect of the consumer whose agreements have been terminated. In the instant case, the agreement has been terminated and therefore, it cannot be said that the power was not utilized by diverting to other consumers. However, had the respondent imposed any condition while restoring the power supply reserving its right to collect the minimum charges from the date of termination till the date of revival from the petitioner, it cannot be said that there was no termination and that the petitioner is entitled to pay the minimum monthly charges for the aforesaid period of termination. I am also of the opinion that the petitioner is liable to pay the monthly minimum charges to the actual date of termination vide proceedings dated 22.06.1999. Though in the proceedings dated 22.06.1999 it is stated that the termination was made with retrospective eﬀect i.e. from 02.06.1999, but in fact the termination proceedings will come into force from the date of passing of the order alone, but not with retrospective eﬀect, therefore, the petitioner has to pay monthly minimum charges up to 22.06.1999 i.e.the date of termination, but he has no obligation or liable to pay the monthly minimum charges from the date of termination i.e. from 22.06.1999 till 25.10.2000, the date of restoration. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondent not to demand and collect the minimum monthly charges for the period during which the agreement was terminated i.e. from 22.06.1999 to 25.10.2000. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 20.08.2008 Dsr ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P.TRANSCO., Rajahmundry, E.G.District. 2 2. 2CCs to 3. 2CD copies