The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.4547 of 2004 Dated 17th June, 2010 Between: M/s.Coromandal Roller Flour Mills. …Petitioner And Transmission Corporation of A.P.Ltd., and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.D.V.Nagarjuna Babu Counsel for the respondents: Mr.O.Manoher Reddy, SC for AP.Transco. The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside letter No.SE/O/VSP/SAO/HT/D.No.66/04, dated 16- 01-2004, of respondent No.3 whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s request for waiver of additional charges for belated payment of 25% rebate. I have heard Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is a roller flour mill. It has filed W.P.No.13467 of 1984 questioning the denial of 25% rebate on power tariff by the erstwhile A.P.State Electricity Board to which respondent No.1 succeeded. By order, dated 03-12-1984, this Court directed the APSEB to grant the 25% rebate for three years. Certain other consumers, who were similarly situated, also filed similar Writ Petitions being W.P.Nos.16822 of 1984 and batch, which came to be disposed of by this Court by order, dated 07-07-1988, whereby the Government of AP was directed to examine the claims of the roller flour mills for extension of 25% rebate. While the issue was pending with the Government, the petitioner was asked to pay back a sum of Rs.1,85,464/- representing the value of the rebate availed by the petitioner for three years. Accordingly, the petitioner paid back the said amount under protest. Respondent No.4 issued a bill, dated 05- 01-1989, demanding Rs.1,82,083-69 ps., towards additional charges for belated payment of the above- mentioned amount. This demand was questioned in W.P.No.531 of 1989 and this Court granted stay of recovery of the said amount. Subsequently, the decision taken by the Government holding that the roller flour mills are not eligible for the rebate was questioned in a batch of Writ Petitions, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide Sri Balaji Flour Mills vs. APSEB[1]. Following the dismissal of the said batch, certain roller flour mills evidently approached the erstwhile APSEB. The Member Secretary of APSEB vide his letter No.SE(Comml)/AAO/25% Rebate/441/98, dated 01-06- 1998, informed that suitable instructions are being issued to the Superintending Engineer/Operation/Rajahmundry, to withdraw the demand notice issued for additional charges for belated refund of 25% rebate amount in respect of M/s.Circar Roller Flour Mills Limited, Kakinada. A similar request made by the petitioner was however rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the benefit of waiver of additional charges made in cases of M/s.Circar Roller Flour Mills, Kakinada, and Kavali Roller Flour Mills, Nellore, cannot be given to the petitioner as the petitioner’s case is not similar to the said two cases. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the distinction sought to be made between the petitioner and the above-named two flour mills does not bear any rationality as undisputedly all the flour mills including the above-mentioned two flour mills availed the rebate under the interim orders granted by this Court. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that refusal to waive additional charges in case of the petitioner constitutes invidious discrimination, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, placed reliance on Para 6 of the counter- affidavit filed by respondent No.3, which reads as under: “In so far as the waiver of additional charges in case of M/s.Circar Roller Flour Mills is concerned, this Hon’ble Court suspended the proceedings issued by AP Transco in the Writ Petition filed by the unit. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent is non-est in law. In the case of the petitioner unit, the concerned the order is not suspended. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the board is entitled to levy the surcharge and the unit is liable to pay the surcharge for the delayed payments as held by this Hon’ble Court as well as the Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularities in the proceedings issued by the respondents and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also pertinent to note that APTRANSCO is the competent authority to take decision in case of policy matters like the present one. Since the AP Transco rejected the representation of the petitioner, this respondent has no option except to recover the dues. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the said decision. Therefore, there is no substance in any one of the grounds raised by the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.” On the basis of the above-reproduced paragraph, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that in case of M/s.Circar Roller Flour Mills, this Court suspended the proceedings issued by the A.P.Transco while such suspension order was not passed in favour of the petitioner. Having carefully considered the plea of the respondents referred to above, I do not find any justification in making distinction between the above- mentioned two cases and the present case. It is not in dispute that in all these cases, the consumers availed rebate on the strength of the interim orders granted by this Court. If additional charges are liable to be paid for withholding the rebate, such a liability shall be fastened on all the consumers alike. The averment contained in Para 6 of the Counter-affidavit of respondent No.3 is vague as to which proceeding was suspended by this Court in case of M/s.Circar Roller Flour Mills, Kakinada. In the counter- affidavit, no reference is made to M/s.Kavali Roller Flour Mills, Nellore. In my opinion, when the petitioner availed the rebate on the strength of an interim order granted by this Court as in the case of the above-mentioned two other flour mills, there can be no rationale in the respondents denying the benefit of waiver of payment of additional charges to the petitioner while extending such benefit to the other similarly situated flour mills. Therefore, I find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that denial of the benefit of waiver of payment of additional charges in case of the petitioner constitutes invidious discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned proceedings are quashed and the Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 17th June, 2010 lur [1] 1997 (1) ALD 382