IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.17928 of 2006 Between: M/s.Gupta Steel Wire Industries, reptd., by its Partner-Sri Ramesh Kumar Gupta. … Petitioner And: Central Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd., Reptd., by its Divisional Engineer, Azamabad Division, Central Circle, Hyderbad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.Raghu. Counsel for the respondent: Sri O. Manohar Reddy. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 1-8-2006, issued by the respondent as being illegal and contrary to Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act”). I have heard Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner, which is a consumer of the respondent, fell in arrears of electricity charges; as a result of which, the power supply was disconnected to its premises. A notice, styled as Distraint Notice, was issued on 1-8-2006 invoking the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short “the 1864 Act”). Questioning the said notice, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that as the petitioner was found due an amount of Rs.1,36,695/- the impugned Distraint Notice was issued for recovery of the dues under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 (for short “the 1984 Act”). At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the recovery of the aforesaid amount is barred under Section 56(2) of the Act. He further contended that the respondent is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the 1864 Act, as such a power is available to it only for recovery of penalty, if any, payable by the person under the Act. In support of this submission, he relied on Section 170 of the Act. He further submitted that prior notice under Section 4 of the 1984 Act has not been issued before issuing the impugned notice. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent opposed these contentions and submitted that since the arrears are continuously being shown in the bills issued to the petitioner from time to time, recovery is not barred under Section 56(2) of the Act. He further submitted that the respondent is entitled to recover the dues under the provisions of the 1984 Act. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary for this Court to deal with the first two contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that prior notice in terms of Section 4 of the 1984 Act has not been issued to the petitioner. This averment of the petitioner is not controverted in the counter-affidavit. Under Section 4 of the 1984 Act, a prior notice shall be given specifying therein the bill amount, penalty and cots, if any, before initiating proceedings under Section 6 of the Act for recovery of the amount. As no such notice has been given, the impugned Distraint Noice cannot be sustained. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings are set aside without going into the other two contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This order does not preclude the respondent from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ---------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:13-7-2010 MNR