IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.22078 of 2010 Between: Sri Bikkina Ajay Kumar ..... PETITIONER (S) AND Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Managing Director and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.22078 of 2010 ORDER: The main grievance of the petitioner is against the action of the 2nd respondent in declining to entertain the appeal preferred by him on 21.08.2010 against the final assessment order dated 14.07.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent and insisting to deposit 50% of the demand as per the final assessment order. Heard Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. At their request the writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. The case of the petitioner is that he is running a poultry farm at Chodavaram village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, for the past five years. Initially he started the farm with 1000 birds and by the moth of March 2010 the strength of birds increased to 4000. As per the terms and conditions of power supply, if the strength of birds is less than 1000 the service connection would be treated under Category-IV and, accordingly, he was sanctioned power connection with Service No.454/000626 under Category-IV. It is also stated that the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Ramachandrapuram, inspected the premises on 08.04.2010, and on noticing that he has been running the poultry farm with 4000 birds with connected load of 1919 Watts, filed a case against him alleging that though running the poultry farm with 4000 birds he is availing the power supply under Category-IV and thereby committed malpractice and, accordingly, issued preliminary assessment notice dated 09.04.2010 as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Clause 9.3 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply and directed him to pay Rs.43,508/-. Further, he was asked to file objections, if any, to the preliminary assessment notice within 15 days and directed to pay 50% of the provisional assessment amount for continuation of the supply. Accordingly, he filed the objections within prescribed time and, thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 26.05.2010 directing him to attend hearing on 08.06.2010 which was received by him on 10.06.2010. The 3rd respondent without verifying the service of notice and his objections, passed the final assessment order dated 14.07.2010 directing him to pay Rs.73,626/- and observing that an appeal lies to the 2nd respondent on payment of 50% of the amount. Accordingly, he filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and deposited 1/3rd of the demand in the final assessment order for entertaining the appeal. The 2nd respondent declined to entertain the appeal on the ground that he has not deposited 50% of the demand. The grievance of the petitioner is that Clause 9.5.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply contemplates payment of only 1/3rd of final assessment amount but contrary to the same the 2nd respondent is insisting to pay 50% of the assessment amount. Hence, the writ petition. Since the grievance of the petitioner is only that the 2nd respondent is declining to entertain the appeal preferred by him on 21.08.2010 against the final assessment order dated 14.07.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent and is insisting to pay 50% of the demand as per final assessment order, I feel it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the said appeal as expeditiously as possible subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the demand made in the final assessment order dated 14.07.2010 and, subject to the petitioner depositing the amount as directed, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings of the final assessment order dated 14.07.2010. The amount, if any, paid already shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ N.V.RAMANA, J. 7th September 2010 CVRK