WP/24401/1996 of Giridhar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs A.P State Electricity Board on 29 December 2006

Conclusion

ORDER:

This Writ Petition has been instituted questioning the orderspassed by the Member Secretary, APSEB, Hyderabad on 08.11.1996rejecting the request of the writ petitioner-Company to revise theelectricity consumption charges bill for the month of September 1996.The case of the writ petitioner is that restrictions have beenimposed on consumption of electric energy by the High Tension (HT)consumers and such restrictions have been relaxed by the orderspassed by the Electricity Board through their B.P. (General –Commercial) Ms.No.41 dated 07.09.1996. According to the writpetitioner, there are no restrictions imposed for HT consumers of 501to 2000 KVA of contracted maximum demand, who fall within category‘C’ of the classification attempted at by B.P.Ms.No.41. The case of thewrit petitioner is that as per the decision in B.P.Ms.No.41 dated07.09.1996, the billing for HT consumers up to 2000 KVA CMD shallbe as per actuals for the consumption month of September 1996. Therefore, it is contended that the electric energy consumption bill for the month of September 1996, which is for the period from 21.08.1996to 20.09.1996 has got to be truncated into two parts; one part for theperiod from 21.08.1996 up to 07.09.1996 and the second part for theconsumption from 07.09.1996 to 20.09.1996 whereas, the respondentshave raised the bill for the month of September 1996 on 26.12.1996taking actual consumption for the entire month as one single lot and onthat basis, a bill for Rs.3,92,266/- (Rupees three lakh ninety twothousand two hundred and sixty six only) has been raised. As againstthis, the writ petitioner would assert that by bifurcating the electricityconsumption for the month of September 1996 into two parts, asreferred to supra, he is only liable to pay Rs.3,03,244/- (Rupees threelakh three thousand two hundred and forty four only). The writpetitioner would further assert that pursuant to the interim directionsgranted by this Court on 19.11.1996 in W.P.M.P.No.30130 of1996, thewrit petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty fivethousand only) for continuing the electric energy supply.

Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, who hasbeen assisted by a Junior Accounts Officer of the organization, makesa statement across the bar that the respondents have committed amistake in computing and calculating the electric energy consumption charges with regard to the maximum demand for the month ofSeptember 1996 with reference to the writ petitioner and therefore, thestatements made in the counter affidavit are inaccurate.

In view of this concession made by the learned StandingCounsel at the bar that the bill for the month of September 1996 hasbeen erroneously computed, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs andthe excess amount paid by the writ petitioner pursuant to the interimdirections passed by this Court on 19.11.1996 shall either be refundedor adjusted against any arrears of consumption charges payable bythe writ petitioner. Further, the said excess amount shall carry interest@ 9% per annum from November 1996 and it is open for therespondents to fix the accountability and responsibility for thiserroneous consumption on any of the officials of the organization andrecover the same from his salary or retiral benefits. Hearing fee isquantified at Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only).

__________________________

(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)