WP/13187/2005 of M/s. Danalakshmi Iron Industries LTd., Honthapalli Village, Vs Transmission Corporation of A.P., Ltd., (AP Transco) rep by on 30 December 2014

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned StandingCounsel for respondents.

2. The petitioner is a private limited company having its registeredoffice at 15-9-358/9, Muktiyar Gunj, Hyderabad. It obtained a powersupply from the respondents. The petitioner was having contractedmaximum demand of 950 KVA. On 03.02.2005, the petitioner applied foradditional load of 500 KVA and the same was sanctioned on 15.03.2005. The petitioner entered into an H.T. Agreement with the respondents on17.03.2005. As per the said agreement, the additional demand of 500KVA had to be taken into account from the consumption month of March,2005. The respondents released the additional load on 18.03.2005. While so, in the monthly bill of March, 2005, dated 26.03.2005, for theperiod from 22.02.2005 to 20.03.2005, the recorded maximum demandfor March, 2005 was shown as 1600.5 KVA, and it was treated that thepetitioner had exceeded the maximum demand by 150.5 KVA. As perthe Tariff Conditions, the petitioner had to pay a penalty to the tune oftwice the normal rates on the exceeded maximum demand of 150.5KVA. The petitioner states that the third respondent charged thepetitioner for the recorded maximum demand of 1600.5 KVA i.e., @ 950KVA for the period from 22.02.2005 to 18.03.2005 and @ 1450 KVA from18.03.2005 to 23.03.2005. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition wasfiled.

3. The petitioner states that under Section 2(8) of the Electricity(Supply) Act, 1948, the “maximum demand” was defined and clause 2.12of the Terms and Conditions of supply framed under the said Act alsodefined the “maximum demand”. It states that the “maximum demand”means twice the largest number of kilowatt-hours or kilo-volt-ampere- hours supplied and taken during any consecutive thirty minutes in thatperiod. The petitioner also relied on the H.T Agreement dated17.03.2005, which deals with the date of commencement of theagreement. It states that the agreement shall come into force from thedate of commencement of supply of energy.

4. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The additional load wasgiven on 18.03.2005 and it was recorded on that date that the recordedmaximum demand is 1600.5 KVA. The petitioner itself filed a copy of thecalculation sheet calculating the amount of Rs.90,000/- towards themaximum demand charges included in the bill of March, 2005. Since therecorded maximum demand was 1600.5 KVA, twice the amount of theexcess energy beyond 950 KVA was calculated for 24 days from22.02.2005 to 18.03.2005 and twice that amount was calculated beyond1450 KVA for two days from 18.03.2005 to 20.03.2005. The totaldemand charges came to Rs.4,31,445/-, whereas in the bill the amountwas shown as Rs.3,41,445/- and hence the amount of Rs.90,000/- wascalculated towards M.D charges. The inclusion of those M.D charges isin tune with the definition of “maximum demand” and the terms of H.TAgreement. In view of the same, there is no illegality in the bill for themonth of March, 2005 issued by the respondents.

5. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits, and the same is, accordingly,dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall standclosed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________

A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J