IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.2024 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19.02.2001 in WP NO.10623 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd and others ..... APPELLANTS AND M/s.Sheethal Shipping and Metal Processors Ltd .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants:MR.O.MANOHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:MR. D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ ble Sri C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This appeal is filed against order, dated 19.02.2001 passed in Writ Petition No.10623 of 2000 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent is the consumer of the appellants. It gave a notice to the appellants for deration (reduction) of Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD). It is an admitted case that on 27.01.2000, the said notice was received by the appellants. It is not in dispute that under the relevant terms and conditions of supply, a request for deration of CMD will come into effect on the expiry of three months’ notice. The appellants have derated the CMD of the respondent with effect from the billing month of June, 2000, which commenced from 22.05.2000. Therefore, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.10623 of 2000. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by placing reliance on Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short ‘the Act’), which defined the “month” as calendar month. On this premise, the learned Single Judge directed that the respondent is entitled for deration of CMD with effect from 01.04.2000. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants placed reliance on Clause 2.6 of the terms and conditions of supply and submitted that as per the said clause, the period between the meter reading date of the immediately succeeding or preceding month, as the context requires, shall be regarded as month for the purpose of billing the charges. Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that as the definition of “month” in Section 3(35) of the Act is very specific, the learned Single Judge rightly allowed the claim of the petitioner for deration of CMD with effect from 01.04.2000. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the learned counsel and we are of the view that the respondent ought to have derated the CMD with effect from the billing month of May, 2000 because, even according to the definition of “month” contained in clause 2.6 of the terms and conditions of supply, the period between the two meter readings of the English calendar month should be treated as the month for the purpose of billing. In the instant case, admittedly, during the billing month of February, 2000, notice was received by the appellants. The minimum three months notice period expires with the billing month of April, 2000. Hence, the appellants ought to have given effect to the deration from the billing month of May, 2000. Though the learned counsel for the respondent asserted that the definition in the Act prevails over the terms and conditions of supply, we are unable to agree with this submission because, the law is well settled that if the statutory provision governing the parties is silent, then the definition contained in the Act will be adopted. In the instant case, clause 2.6 of the terms and conditions of supply provides for specific definition of “month” and this definition binds both the parties. Therefore, the provisions of the Act cannot be fallen back upon. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Single Judge is modified by directing that the deration of CMD in the case of the respondent should come into effect from the billing month of May, 2000 instead of from 01.04.2000, as directed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly, disposed of. _____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J 27th FEBRUARY, 2009. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J kvni