IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2185 of 2008 Between: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Chief Regional Manager, Secunderabad Retail Regional Office, 9-1-130/1, Sebastian Street, S.D. Road, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh, Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, D.No.30-14-9, Sai Sakthi Bhavan, Opp: Saraswati Park, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam - 530 020. 2 The Chairman and Managing Director, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh, Ltd., D.No.30-14-9, Sai Sakthi Bhavan, Opp: Saraswati Park, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam - 530 020. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Andhra Pradesh Eastern Poswer Distribution Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, Vidyuth Sakha Building, Opp: Green Park Hotel, Visakhapatnam - 530 002. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: O.MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 25-05-2005 of respondent No.3, re-categorizing the electrical connection Consumer No.S.C.No.VSP 308 of the petitioner-unit located at Visakhapatnam, from H.T.Category I (Industry) to H.T.Category II (non industrial), as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the view I am taking, detailed facts need not be recorded. It will suffice to note that the dispute regarding reclassification of the petitioner’s service connection, which is a HT Category I Consumer, arose. In purported exercise of the power under Condition No.35 of the revised Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1975, framed by the erstwhile A.P.State Electricity Board, to which respondent No.1 succeeded under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998, the classification of the petitioner was changed from H.T.Category I to H.T.Category II with retrospective effect. The said order was questioned by the petitioner before the Consumer Redressal Forum, which was constituted by respondent No.1 as an in-house mechanism for redressal of the grievances of the consumers under Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner, having been unsuccessful in the said appeal, approached the Vidyut Ombudsman (for short ‘the Ombudsman’), which was also constituted under the said provision. The Ombudsman partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the change of classification with retrospective effect, but however, sustained the action of the respondents in changing the classification prospectively. He directed the respondents to give a notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for change of classification with retrospective operation. During the pendency of the appeal before the Consumer Redressal Forum and the Ombudsman, the petitioner paid tariff in accordance with the changed category (H.T.Category II). The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the said orders in the two appeals. On the strength of the interim orders granted by this Court, the petitioner started paying the tariff under H.T.Category I, though billing was continued to be done under H.T.category II. At the hearing, Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though the petitioner raised the contention that the respondents have no power to reclassify the category once made, by invoking Condition No.35 of the Terms and Conditions, before the appellate Forum, he is not pressing the said contention. He, however, pressed into service the alternative contention raised in the appeals to the effect that even after conceding that the respondents are empowered to change the categories under Condition No.35 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, since the action of change of classification is not preceded by a notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the said action is void. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on the judgments of this Court reported in AET Laboratories Limited vs. Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., and others and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. vs. G.E.B.S. Transmission Utility and submitted that since the impugned action is void, the differential tariff, which the petitioner paid, shall be directed to be refunded by way of adjustment in future bills. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, per contra, forcefully submitted that Condition No.35 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply does not envisage issue of notice before changing the categorization, and hence, the action of the respondents is not in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel also invited my attention to Clauses 5 and 10 of the agreement, and submitted that under the said clauses, the respondents have unilateral power to change the tariff conditions, which shall necessarily include change of categories, and hence, having conceded such a power to the respondents, it is not permissible for the petitioner to turn around and plead that the respondents are obliged to give a notice before changing the classification. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel and perused the record. Clause 35 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply reads as under: 35. Reclassification of consumers and Revision of bills: Where a consumer has been classified under a particular category and is billed accordingly and it is subsequently observed that the classification is not correct, the Board may alter the classification and suitably revise the bills if necessary even retrospectively.’ I have given serious thought to the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that there is no requirement for the respondents to give a notice under the above-reproduced condition, and I am not inclined to accept the same. It cannot be doubted that change of classification results in adverse consequences to the consumer. Law is well settled that when an action is proposed to be taken, which is likely to adversely affect the interests of a party, he is entitled to a notice. The Apex Court, time and again, held that unless a statutory provision specifically excludes the requirement of observation of principles of natural justice, such a requirement shall be read into the provision. (See Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. V. Union of India and Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India) A perusal of the above-reproduced condition shows that the requirement of giving a notice is not expressly done away with. Therefore, applying the settled legal principles as mentioned above, Condition No.35 of the Terms and Conditions shall be read as requiring the respondents to issue a notice before changing the classification of the petitioner. Since such a notice was, admittedly, not given, the action of the respondents in changing the petitioner’s category from HT Category I to HT Category II is liable to be declared as void. Since the respondents are being directed to issue notice to the petitioner and decide the claim of the petitioner that it should be categorized under HT category I, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition in the following terms: 1 . Within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, respondent No.3 shall give notice to the petitioner against the proposed change of classification. 2 . Within a period of two weeks thereafter, the petitioner shall file its objections. 3 . On receipt of objections, respondent No.3 shall dispose of the same before taking a final decision on the proposed reclassification 4. Since the action of reclassification is declared void, the respondents shall adjust the excess amount paid by the petitioner towards differential tariff in the immediate future electricity bills. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.2813 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 16th April, 2008 lur