Telangana High Court
WP/14454/2007 of M/s. Mahalaxmi Rice Mill, SC.No.88, rep.by its Vs The Eastern Power Distribution company of AP Ltd., on 31 December 2013
A . RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.14454 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition was filed challenging the notice dated 15.06.2007 in letter No.ADE/O/Rural/ELR/S.Engr/F.24hrs/D.No.1226/07 demanding an amount of Rs.1,16,756/- for the unutilized units by the petitioner. The petitioner is a rice
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Arguments
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAOWRIT PETITION No.14454 of 2007
ORDER:
This writ petition was filed challenging the notice dated15.06.2007 in letterNo.ADE/O/Rural/ELR/S.Engr/F.24hrs/D.No.1226/07 demanding anamount of Rs.1,16,756/- for the unutilized units by the petitioner. Thepetitioner is a rice mill and is a consumer since 2000. The unit wasgiven 3 phase supply and in view of the fluctuating supply of power,the petitioner could not utilize the contracted load. The petitionerentered into an agreement by paying the 1/3 rd amount of cost ofsupply in the beginning agreeing to utilize 54486 units within theperiod of 5.70 months. But, unfortunately, from 08.05.2006 thepetitioner’s unit was not running properly and it affected theconsumption of electricity also. So the petitioner could utilize only23351 units instead of 54486 units causing short fall of 31135 units. Inthose circumstances, the 2[nd] respondent issued the impugned noticedemanding payment of Rs.1,16,756/-.
The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that in view ofthe critical power position prevailing and with a view to encourage theconsumers, the respondent company introduced extending 24 hours 3phase supply, as against the supply position of 7 hours subject tocertain terms and conditions through means of extending 11 KVfeeding. The writ petitioner has opted for 24 hours supply to theservice connection No.88. It was interlinked to 11 KV SurappagudemIndustrial feeder emanating from 33/11 KV Surappagudem Sub-Station, through means of erection of 0.85 KM 11 KV line over 8meters PSCC poles of 200 Kg with 55 square MM AAA conductor withan estimated cost of Rs.1,44,880/-. The main condition of the schemewas the consumption of 33455 units of the service for a period of 12months from 13.01.2005 to 11.01.2006. The anticipated monthly consumption was calculated and net revenue increase per month wasalso calculated on the said basis. The cost of the estimate was lessthan Rs.5,00,000/- and pay back period was 6 months. Hence, 1/3[rd] ofthe cost estimated was collected at the time of giving connection. Thepetitioner executed an agreement in favour of the Department and nowshe is estopped from denying the agreement.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedstanding counsel for the respondents.
The learned standing counsel for the respondents stated thatpursuant to the impugned order, the petitioner submitted anexplanation on 29.06.2007 admitting the request made by thepetitioner and sanction of the power supply on 08.05.2006 bycollecting 1/3[rd] of the total estimated cost. The petitioner also statedthat the mill went out of order from 14.10.2006 to 14.12.2006. In viewof the same, she could not utilize the power which was neither willfulnor intentional, and she accordingly sought exemption. But it is statedby the learned standing counsel for the respondents that no exemptioncan be granted in the circumstances and the petitioner is liable to payfor the short fall units. Learned standing counsel also states that sheentered into another agreement subsequent to the impugned orderalso and she has been paying charges as per the agreement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitionernever agreed for payment of short fall units and the demand made bythe respondents is unwarranted. He also states that due to fluctuationin the power supply, the anticipated units could not be consumed.
The above facts would clearly reveal that the petitioner wasgiven service connection only upon agreeing to the terms andconditions and entered into an agreement with the respondents bycollecting 1/3[rd] of the cost estimated in advance. After entering intoagreement, the petitioner cannot resile from the conditions of theagreement and state that the amount for short fall units cannot bedemanded. This Court granted interim stay on 13.07.2007 on condition of the petitioner depositing 1/3[rd] of the demanded amount and the learned counsel for thepetitioner states that the said amount was deposited.
Conclusion
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is nosubstance in the writ petition and the petitioner is bound by the termsand conditions of the agreement and the demand made by therespondents in the impugned letter dated 15.06.2007 is in accordancewith the agreement only.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as tocosts. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in thispetition shall stand closed.
Date: 31.12.2013ska
________________________
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J