HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.27772 of 2009
Date: October 08, 2014
Between:
Sri Kameswara Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its sole proprietor S. Kumaraswamy.
… Petitioner And
1. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P., Limited, Tekkali, Srikakulam District & another.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.27772 of 2009
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner concern is a rice mill. It obtained service connection bearing No.3247 under Category III for the purpose of its business. The petitioner rice mill is situated at Tekkali Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District. While so, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Tekkali, visited the premises of the petitioner on 29.06.2009 and noticed that the connected load of the petitioner is 100.5 HP, while the contracted load is only 71.34 HP. Pursuant to the said inspection, the first respondent issued a notice on 29.06.2009 directing the petitioner to regularize the additional load by paying an amount of Rs.75,150/- and Rs.52,460/- being the shortfall amount aggregating to Rs.1,27,610.42 ps. towards additional load and other charges as detailed in the proceedings. The petitioner was given an opportunity of making representation within 30 days. The petitioner personally met the respondents and informed that it has not exceeded the contracted load. The 2nd respondent visited the premises of the petitioner on 18.08.2009 and threatened to disconnect the service of the petitioner. Challenging the action of the respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17528 of 2009 and the same was disposed of on 24.08.2009 quashing the impugned proceedings and giving liberty to the respondents to initiate action afresh. Pursuant to the same, the Assistant Divisional Engineer issued letter dated 09.10.2009 stating that at the time of inspection 25 KVA of additional load in addition to the sanctioned contracted load is noticed and signed by the representative of the petitioner and in order to regularize the additional load, the petitioner was directed to enter into a revised agreement as per the terms and conditions of supply.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the terms and conditions of supply the consumer is entitled to a notice along with all the relevant material to show that the consumer has exceeded the contracted load and that objections be invited in that regard. He also submits that no copy of the inspection report was furnished to the petitioner. He denies of the conduct of inspection itself. Challenging the impugned proceedings dated 09.10.2009, the present writ petition was filed.
4. The issue raised by the petitioner with regard to the inspection and issuance of notice was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.949 of 2012 and batch wherein the batch of writ appeals was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to furnish material on the basis of which a notice was directed to be given to the consumer and after considering the objections of respective consumers, pass appropriate orders with regard to each consumer.
5. In the instant case, in the earlier round of litigation the petitioner filed W.P.No.17528 of 2009 and the same was disposed of on 24.08.2009. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that the said order was received by the first respondent on 05.09.2009. In the impugned order, the objections raised by the petitioner were also considered. After considering the objections only the present order was passed. The first respondent has considered various objections point by point while issuing the impugned proceedings. Though the petitioner stated that it has not drawn extra contracted load and need not enter into the revised agreement, no material was placed before the first respondent with regard to the same. The inspection report was signed by the representative of the petitioner and hence the first respondent came to the conclusion that since a copy of the notice was served on the agent, there is no need to submit a copy of the report. However, in view of the specific objection raised by the petitioner, the first respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the inspection report within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to the petitioner and the petitioner is given liberty to submit an additional defence, if any, based on the said report within 30 days thereafter and the first respondent is at liberty to take further action based on the representation submitted by the petitioner.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: October 08, 2014 BSB 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.27772 of 2009
Date: October 08, 2014
BSB