IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT:: HYDERABAD. FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.No.8377 OF 1993 Between:- Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. …Petitioner A n d Chief Electrical Inspector to Government, Mint Compound, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.No.8377 OF 1993 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board seeking Writ of Certiorari questioning the order dated 20-03-1992 of the first respondent-Chief Electrical Inspector, wherein the first respondent directed the petitioner to adjust 25.50 lakhs paid by the second respondent-company towards works under execution holding that in the absence of specific provision for collection of service line charges under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, B.P.Ms.No.1160 dated 03-11-1989 issued by the petitioner is inconsistent with Clause VI of schedule to Indian Electricity Act, 1910. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the records. 3. The second respondent, who is a H.T consumer, was required to receive supply at a specified voltage of 132 KV and the proposal to lay service line of 132 KV was sanctioned and the second respondent having agreed to pay the estimated amount of Rs.53.47 lakhs had initially paid Rs.25.5 lakhs. The said amount was demanded towards proportionate KVA charges at the rate of Rs.600/- per KVA as prescribed under B.P.Ms.No.1160. The second respondent raised a dispute before the first respondent and sought refund of the amount paid on the ground that the demand and collection of the said amount is contrary to the provisions of Clause VI of the schedule to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The petitioner filed reply before the first respondent contending that the amount demanded does not fall within Clause VI of the Schedule to 1910 Act and the Board is vested with the power under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 to frame necessary conditions for supply of electricity and the demand made in exercise of such power is valid. It was also contended that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to decide the said issue. The first respondent had negatived the contention of the petitioner and passed the impugned order directing refund by way of adjustment of 25.50 lakhs towards works under execution. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The dispute raised in this writ petition as also the issue of jurisdiction of the first respondent to decide thereon are similar to the issues raised in W.A.Nos.37 & 1053 of 2001 which are disposed of today. The reasoning contained in the said common judgment in W.A.Nos.37 & 1053 of 2001 holds good for this writ petition as well mutatis mutandi. 5. Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of as covered by the common judgment in W.A.Nos.37 & 1053 of 2001. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Dated 9th April, 2010. Lrkm.