HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.24244 of 2002 Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 Between: Manish Industries Ginning Factory, Adilabad, a partnership firm, Rep.by its Partner, Saroj Devi. and 7 others … Petitioners AND The Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Co., rep.by its M.D., Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.24244 of 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the proceedings dated 23.11.2002 issued by the third respondent to club L.T. service connections of all the petitioners into one HT connection as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Condition 27 of the A.P.S.E.B. terms and conditions of supply. 2) The petitioners are having ginning mills and cottonseed and oil industries adjacent to each other. They were availed separate connections by utilizing the LT service. The petitioners are contending that though originally they belong to one family, they have established separate units, some of them are proprietary concerns and some of them are firms. They are also maintaining accounts separately and income tax returns were also filed by each petitioner separately. They also obtained licences separately to run the industries. Therefore, under any circumstances, they cannot be treated as one unit run by the same person and the LT services of all the persons cannot be clubbed into one HT connection. 3) The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners are running the mills regarding the same activity of ginning mills, cotton oil and seed process etc., which are ancillary to each other and they have a common place where they store the cotton for the purpose of ginning activity and as they belong to the same family, the concerned authorities rightly came to the conclusion after due enquiry that their services are liable to be clubbed into one HT service. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed so much material to show that their industries are registered separately, they are maintaining separate accounts, they are filing separate income tax returns and they are separate partnership firms and proprietary concerns and they are held by different persons. Therefore, the proceedings issued by the third respondent is not legal and it is liable to be set aside. 5) Condition No.27 of the Revised Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity reads as follows: “27. For the purpose of these terms and conditions of supply establishments. 27.1 having distinct set up and staff, or 27.2 owned or leased by different persons, or 27.3 covered by different licenses or registrations under any law where such procedures are applicable, will be deemed to be separate establishment; Provided that the Board may treat at its discretion, two or more separate establishments situated within a single premises owned or leased by the same person and requiring electricity for purposes covered under same category of tariff, as single establishment.” 6) From the above said clause, the following condition must be satisfied to club some LT services into one HT service. All industries must be within the same premises owned or leased by the same person and those who were availing the same category of tariff. 7) In the present case, the industries are having distinct set up and staff, they are owned by different persons and they were established under different licences. When these conditions are satisfied, they shall be deemed as separate establishments and they are entitled to have separate connections. 8) It is an undisputed fact that the establishments are owned by different persons either as a proprietary concern or as a partnership firm and they are also having different registrations and they are submitted separate income tax returns. Simply because the petitioners are keeping their cotton for the purpose of storing at a common premises, they cannot be considered that they are owned by the same person and LT service connections of all the petitioners cannot be clubbed. 9) After going through the material, I am of the view that the Condition No.27 of the terms and conditions of the agreement does not attract in the present case. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 23.11.2002 issued by the third respondent by holding that it is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Condition 27 of the A.P.S.E.B. terms and conditions of supply. 10) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 23.11.2002 issued by the third respondent is set aside. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 30.01.2008 Isn