IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27342 of 2003 Between: M/s.Siva Shanker Slab Cutting & Polishing Industry, rep. By its Prop. A.Rami Reddy. … Petitioner And 1. The Chief Engineer, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Cuddapah. 2. The Superintendent, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Assessment, Cuddapah. 3. The Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Officer, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Banaganpalli, Kurnool District. … Respondents. The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27342 of 2003 ORDER: - The Writ Petitioner, being a proprietory concern involved in the business of Cutting and Polishing Industry, has filed this writ petition questioning the proceedings No. AAO/ERO/BNP/JAO.I/ NS.I/D.No.1023/03, dated 03.11.2003, for payment of Rs.32,858/- issued by the Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Officer, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Banaganapalli - 3rd respondent. For the purpose of running the cutting and polishing industry, the petitioner is availing electricity through electricity service connection No.32 under L.T.Category. When the service connection of the petitioner was inspected, on 14.11.1997 by the Assistant Executive Engineer/D.T.E.-1/ Cuddapah, vigilance wing, he having noticed certain incriminating points during the inspection, about the mal practice committed by the petitioner, initiated proceedings to assess the loss of energy. Though initially provisional demand was made for an amount of Rs.12,88,962/-, but finally the loss is assessed at Rs.6,33,260/-. As against the said demand, the matter was carried in appeal by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority, passed orders dated 30.05.1998, fixing the liability of the petitioner at Rs.3,73,340/-. The said demands were subject matter of writ petition before this court in W.P.No.18255 of 1998 and during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has deposited half of the demand. By order dated 05.08.2002, this earlier writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay the balance amount in six equal monthly instalments commencing from 1st September, 2002. In the earlier order passed by this court it is specifically observed that the respondent authorities are at liberty to collect usual additional charges as per law. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that inasmuch as the petitioner was permitted to pay the amount which was due in six equal monthly instalments, commencing from 1st September, 2002, as such respondents were not empowered to collect any amount towards additional charges. But in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is categorically stated that though the petitioner was permitted to pay the balance amount in six equal monthly instalments commencing from 1st September, 2002, but the petitioner has paid only from 09.12.2002 in stead of 01.09.2002. It is further stated that for the belated payments made by the petitioner, in terms of the terms and conditions of the supply, the impugned demand is made. As per the terms and conditions of supply framed under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, there is a specific condition which empowers the respondents to impose additional charges on the consumption charges. Though the earlier demand was permitted to be paid in a time frame, but in the counter-affidavit, it is categorically stated that the petitioner has not started paying the instalments as per the time frame fixed by this court in the order passed by this Court on 05.08.2002 in W.P.No.18255 of 1998. Further, it is also to be noticed that this court itself has made clear in the earlier order giving liberty to the respondents to collect the usual additional charges as per law. In view of the condition in the terms and conditions of supply, which empowers the respondents to collect additional charges for the late payment of the current consumption charges, I do not find any illegality in issuing the impugned demand demanding an amount of Rs.32,858/- . Though the petitioner was permitted for paying the amount in six equal monthly instalments commencing from 1st September, 2002, having not deposited the instalments as per the directions issued by this court, the petitioner cannot assail the impugned demand, which is in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is devoid of merit. However, the petitioner is permitted to deposit the said demand, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any steps are to be taken for non payment of the said amount, the petitioner is to be notified about the same. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 06.10.2009. Lmv