HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No. 26190 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the action of the third respondent in levying the additional charges, excise duty interest and interest charges under condition No.32.2.1 (a) of terms and conditions of supply and in levying interest charges in respect of September, 1999 bill under condition No.34 (a) as illegal and contrary to the direction issued by the High Court in W.P.No.19675 of 1999, dated 21-09-1999. 2. The petitioner is a HT consumer with a contracted maximum demand of 2100 KVA under an agreement with the first respondent for the supply of power. The petitioner got derated its CMD to 1000 KVA recently. The third respondent has issued bill for the month of August, 1999, dated 26-08-1999 for the period from 21-07- 1999 to 21-08-1999. In the said period, the petitioner exceeded the maximum demand on account of disturbance in the supply made by the respondents-corporation. The recorded maximum demand in the month of August, 1999 was 2213.58 KVA. The respondents have to levy the M.D. charges over and above 2100 KVA at double the normal rate of 165 per KVA. The petitioner received a letter from the first respondent informing that the petitioner’s original CMD of 2100 KVA shall be deemed to have been restored from August, 1999 and requested the petitioner to approach the second respondent seeking revision of August, 1999 bill. When the petitioner filed W.P.No.19675 of 1999, the High Court gave a direction, while disposing of the writ petition, to approach the Superintending Engineer and whatever decision that is likely to be given by the Superintending Engineer, the third respondent was directed to implement the same and till then, no disconnection shall be made. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the second respondent for revision of August, 1999 bill. The third respondent revised the bill in terms of the decision taken by the second respondent. The petitioner paid the revised bill, dated 26-10- 1999, on the same day. But, the third respondent in the monthly bill of November, 1999 included additional charges of Rs.1,39,864-38 ps and electricity duty interest of Rs.3,394-75 ps and Interest charges of Rs.1,36,959-91 ps. The third respondent levied charges under condition No.32.2.1 (a) and also interest under condition No.34 (a). 3. The petitioner contended that as per condition No.32, additional charges are leviable when the consumer willfully commits default. But such additional charges cannot be levied in a case like this in view of the fact that the respondents themselves issued a wrong bill, which had been rectified by them subsequently. Hence, the delay in issuing the correct bill cannot be attributed to him and the levy of interest charges under condition No.34 (a) does not arise, as no instalment was granted to the petitioner for payment of the August,1999 bill and the bill was paid in full at a time. The petitioner further contended that in October, 1999 bill, the third respondent also included additional charges of Rs.70,095/- under condition No.32.2.1 (a) and interest charges of Rs.71,853/- under condition No.34 (a). 4. The petitioner contended that the bills of September, 1999 was paid by the petitioner without seeking any instalment within the time granted to him, therefore, the interest charges under condition No.34 (a) cannot be levied in respect of the bill for the month of August, 1999 and levy of interest charges under condition No.34 (a) in respect of bill for the month of September, 1999. 5. The respondents filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner approached the Director, A.P. Transco for extension of time for payment of August, 1999 bill amounting to Rs.58,33,094/-, which was subsequently revised to Rs.45,28,113/- and the A.P. Transco has permitted the consumer for payment of the said bill amount on or before 28-09-1999 with the following conditions: 1. The bill amount shall be paid on or before the due date mentioned above; 2. The monthly C.C. bills should be paid regularly; 3. Additional charges for belated payment and interest charges for affording facility of extension of time are payable as per terms and conditions of supply in vogue along with the above amount; 4. The service is liable for disconnection for default in payment at any time, without any further notice, since the consumer has paid the bill of 8/99 on 26-10-1999. The additional charges for belated payment and interest charges for affording facility of extension of time has been calculated and included in the bill of 11/99 as per the condition (3) of the above conditions. The calculation for the above belated payment of the bill is as under: ___________________________________________________ Month Bill amt. Due on Paid on Delay Addl Interest E.D.I. Charges charges ___________________________________________________ 8/99 45,28,113 10-9-99 26-10-99 45 days 139864-38 136959-75 3394-75 6. The petitioner requested extension of time for payment of Septmeber, 1999 bill amount of Rs.56,26,524/- and the Director, A.P. Transco has permitted the petitioner for extension of time upto 28-10- 1999 with the same conditions as in the case of August, 1999 bill. The consumer paid the amount of September bills in two instalments i.e., on 30-10-1999 part amount of Rs.36,26,524/- and Rs.20,00,000/- on 04-11-1999, therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay additional charges and electricity duty interest. 7. The respondents further contended that since the consumer has accepted the pre-condition laid down in the above letter of permission for payment of electricity bills for the month of August and September, 1999 and paid the bill after the extension of time, he cannot question the demand of those charges, therefore, requested to dismiss the writ petition with costs. 8. Condition No.32.2.1 (a) of the terms and conditions of the supply of electricity read as follows: “32.2.1 (a):- Bills shall be paid by the high tension consumers within fifteen days and by low tension consumers within fourteen days from the date of the bill failing which the consumer shall be liable to pay an additional charges at the rates prescribed by the Board from time to time and notified in the Tariff Notifications of the Board. “In the case of consumers covered by Card System of billing the payment shall be made in the manner specified in the tariff applicable to such consumers.” Condition No.34 (a) reads as follows: 34 (a): Payment of dues of the Board instalments:- The Board may permit a consumer when he so requests, to pay charges for electricity supplied, consumption deposit or any other charges in installments provided that, where such request is granted the consumer shall in addition to any additional charges leviable due to belated payment as per the clause 32.2 hereof under the other terms and conditions of supply, pay interest charges at 24% per annum, on the amount outstanding out of the charges allowed to be paid in instalments.” As per condition No.32.2.1 (a), if the consumer fails to pay the bill amount within 15 days from the date of bill, he is liable to pay the additional charges at the rates as prescribed by the board. As per condition No.34 (a), if the consumer seeks time for payment of the consumption charges in instalments, he is liable to pay interest charges @ 24% per annum in addition to the additional charges leviable for the belated payment. But, in respect of August bill, the respondents imposed additional charges, interest charges and electricity duty interest. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the respondents gave wrong bill imposing the penalty of five times on the exceeded contract load, it is liable to be reduced to two times excess load. The respondents revised the consumption by serving the bill of the petitioner on 25-10-1999 and the amount was paid by the petitioner without any delay. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that for the purpose of additional charges, the original bill date has to be taken into consideration and as the amount was not paid within 15 days from the date of serving of the original bill, the petitioner is liable to pay additional charges. 11. Admittedly, there was revision of the bill and immediately after the revision of the bill, the petitioner paid the amount without any delay, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is liable to pay any additional charges for the default in payment of the wrong bill amount from the date of original bill. 12. Whenever there is a demand from the authorities by way of serving the bill to the High Tension consumers, they have to pay the amount covered by the bill within 15 days failing which they are liable to pay additional charges at the rates prescribed by the Board. In the present case, the respondents issued a wrong bill and the revised bill was issued permitting the consumer to pay the amount on or before 28-09-1999 and it was accordingly, paid. 13. The petitioner sought for extension of time for payment of September, 1999 bill and the TRANSCO has extended time upto 28- 10-1999. The consumer paid the amount of September bill in two spells i.e., Rs.36,26,524/- on 30-10-1999 and Rs.20,00,000/- on 04-11- 1999. As the amount was not paid within the stipulated time granted by the respondent, condition No.32.2.1 (a) is applicable and the petitioner is liable to pay additional charges. 13. It is the contention of the respondents that as the petitioner was granted instalments for payment of September, 1999 bill, he is liable to pay interest charges @ 24% per annum in addition to the additional charges. 14. So far as the September, 1999 bill is concerned, the petitioner is liable to pay additional charges over the bill amount. But he is not liable to pay interest charges @ 24% per annum, as no order was passed granting instalments to the petitioner. 15. In respect of August, 1999, the respondents initially issued a wrong bill and subsequently issued a revised bill for Rs.45,28,113/- and immediately after receipt of the revised bill, the petitioner paid the amount covered by the August bill, therefore, application of Condition No.31.2.1 in the present case does not arise and the petitioner is not liable to pay additional charges and interest charges for the amount covered by August, 1999 bill. 16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. The imposition of additional charges and interest charges on August, 1999 bill is set aside. So far as the September Bill is concerned, the petitioner is liable to pay additional charges. But he is not liable to pay interest charges as he was not granted payment of the amount in instalments. No order as to costs. ________________ DR. G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: -02-2008 YCR