The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.38258 of 2014 Dated 12.12.2014 Between:
M/s.Sudarsanam Spinning Mills rep. by its Senior General Manager, Mr.R.Sethu Raman And …Petitioner The Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P., Limited, rep. by its Managing Director and 2 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.D.V.Nagarjun Babu Counsel for the respondents: Mr.S.V.Ramana for Mr.O.Manohar Reddy, SC for APSPDCL The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed by a HT consumer questioning levy of penalties to the tune of Rs.3,75,933-50 ps., by revising its bills for the period from April, 2013 to June, 2013.
At the hearing, Mr.D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents have failed to take into consideration the power received by the petitioner through the Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, while revising the bills, and that if the said power is properly accounted for, his client will not be liable to pay any penalties. He has further submitted that his client has made representations, dated 01-09-2014, 10-10-2014, 26-11-2014 and 28-
11-2014 to respondent No.2 by raising objections to the revised bills, but the same have not been considered by the said respondent.
After hearing Mr.S.V.Ramana, learned Counsel representing Mr.O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1- Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APSPDCL), I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate if respondent No.2- Superintending Engineer of APSPDCL considers the objections of the petitioner and communicates his decision to the petitioner. I am also of the view that in the event the petitioner feels dissatisfied with the decision of respondent No.2, it can first avail the remedies under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003, before seeking a judicial review, in the event he feels aggrieved by the decisions of the said fora.
In this view of the matter, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s objections, stated to have been raised in the above-noted representations, take a decision thereon and communicate the same to the petitioner. Atleast for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the decision taken by respondent No.2 to the petitioner, the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection shall not be disconnected for non-payment of the above- mentioned demand.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.47874 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
Dt: 12th December, 2014
LUR