IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINENEETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 16138 of 2003 Between: Bandlamudi Sambasiva Rao, S/o.Subbaiah, R/o.Guntur, Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited, Rep.by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Asst.Account Officer, Elecstricity Revenue Office (D-7 section) E.R.O/Town/Guntur. .....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 issue writ or direction, in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, declaring the action respondents in insisting to pay additional consumption deposit with respect to S.C.Nos.07102035607, 07102055229 and 07102048841 of the petitioner, pursuant to the letters dated 9-5-2003 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, void and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.AVULA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the second respondent in insisting to pay additional consumption deposit in respect of three service connections, through his letters dated 09.05.2003 as illegal and arbitrary. 2) The petitioner is required to pay additional consumption deposit as per the tariff order, which is in pursuance of Clause No.28.02.01 of terms and conditions of supply. The same is required to keep the amount equivalent to three months consumption deposit as additional consumption deposit. The additional consumption deposit shall be reviewed every year based on three months consumption preceding 12 months consumption. The additional consumption deposit of the petitioner was on the basis of consumption charges for the financial year 2002-03 and accordingly, the letter was issued for payment of the amount within 30 days. 3) The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition by saying that there is no illegality committed by the respondents. 4) After going through the material available on record, I am of the view that the second respondent is not committed any illegality in issuing the demand notice for payment of additional consumption deposit. There are no merits in the writ petition. 5) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 19.02.2008 Isn ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Managing Director, Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Asst.Account Officer, Elecstricity Revenue Office (D-7section) E.R.O/Town/Guntur. 3. 2 CCs to 4. 2 CD copies