IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.1037, 1045 and 1083 of 2009 W.P.No.1037 of 2009 Between: M/s. Ravi Teja Modern Rice Mill Rep. by its Managing Partner, B. Narasimha Murthy Tekkali Village & Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst. Divisional Engineer Operations, Tekkali Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 2 The Asst. Engineer, Operations Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Tekkali, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS W.P.No.1045 of 2009 Between: S.Vykunta Rao S/o.S.Neeladri Tekkali, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, Tekkali, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 2 The Assistant Engineer, Operations, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Tekkali, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS W.P.No.1083 of 2009 Between: M/s. Lakshmi Narsimha Industries, N.H.5 Road, Tekkali, Srikakulam District, represented by its Managing Partner J.Narsimha Murthy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, Tekkali, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 2 The Assistant Engineer, Operations, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Tekkali, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.R.SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondents: O.MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : Common Order: These three Writ Petitions involve common issues. Therefore, they are heard and being disposed of together. The petitioners are receiving power supply from the respondents under separate agreements as LT consumers. On the basis of an inspection said to have been conducted by the Assistant Divisional Engineer Concerned, the respondents issued separate notices calling upon the petitioners to get the excess load, said to have been connected and being utilized by them, regularized by paying development charges and other charges as envisaged under the General Terms and Conditions of Supply of the respondents. Those orders have been questioned in these Writ Petitions. At the hearing, Sri R.Sudheer, learned Counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the allegation that the petitioners have connected loads in excess of the contracted load is wholly incorrect. He also submitted that proper person was not present when inspections were made and if a proper opportunity is given to the petitioners, they would establish that the above said allegation is incorrect. In the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents, they have reiterated the contents of the impugned notices and placed reliance on condition No.12.3.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply to justify the impugned demands. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that the question whether the petitioners connected additional load, as allegedly found by the Inspecting Officer, falls in the realm of disputed question of fact. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to decide this issue while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While the respondents placed reliance on Condition No.12.3.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply to sustain the impugned demands, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, as noted above, submitted that proper opportunity is not given to the petitioners to establish that they have not connected the additional load. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the above-mentioned condition does not stipulate any notice before making a demand and therefore, no prior opportunity need be given. Though, literally construed, Condition No.12.3.3 does not envisage a prior opportunity, in my considered opinion, the said condition is required to be read down to the effect that if the respondents come to the conclusion that the consumer has connected additional load, a notice to that effect is to be given, along with all the relevant material to show that the consumer has exceeded the contracted load, and objections be invited. After considering the objections, if any, filed by the consumer, the respondents shall have to determine the issue regarding the factum of connection of additional load. Interpreting this Condition in any other manner would only lead to arbitrariness and unilateral adjudication of the dispute by the licensee. In this view of the matter, as, admittedly, the impugned demands are not preceded by notice and an opportunity of filing objections by the petitioners, they are quashed. The respondents are given liberty to initiate action afresh after following the procedure referred to above. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, W.P.M.P.Nos.1319, 1330 and 1368 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 8th June, 2009 lur