HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13681 of 2009 Date: April 22, 2014 Between:
M/s. Udaya Binny Rice Mill, Panagal, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda District, rep. by its Proprietor P. Venkata Reddy.
… Petitioner And
1. The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director & 4 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13681 of 2009 O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition was filed challenging the notice in Letter No.AAP/ERO/NLG/NCBS/D.No.335 dated 23.06.2009 of the 5th respondent as contrary to Condition No.12.1.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. In the impugned notice the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.61,541/- towards shortfall amount.
3. The case of the petitioner is that their service connection is regularly inspected by the officials of the first respondent. The 4th respondent is an authorized meter reader and for the readings recorded by him, the petitioner has been making payments for the electricity consumed. The petitioner is surprised to receive the impugned notice on 23.06.2009 even though they have been paying monthly bills regularly. As the impugned notice did not indicate any reason, the petitioner made enquiries with the respondents and it came to light that the said notice was issued demanding amount towards capacitor surcharge. The impugned notice was issued without following the procedure under clause 12.1.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply pointing out any defect in the capacitors.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondents states that the matter is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P. No.3203 of 2008 dated 10.11.2010 wherein the writ petition was allowed for not following the procedure as per clause 12.1.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. In the instant case also the notice does not indicate any reason or no procedure was followed before issuing the impugned notice.
5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand notice is set aside. However, this will not preclude the respondents from issuing any fresh notice after following due process of law. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: April 22, 2014 BSB
23 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.13681 of 2009 Date: April 22, 2014 BSB