Telangana High Court
WP/33466/2010 of M/s. Sri Tirumala Foods AND Feed Vs The Central Distribution Company of AP. Ltd on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33466 of 2010 Date: 30.12.2010 Between: M/s. Sri Tirumala Foods & Feed, Ranga Reddy District ..... Petitioner AND The Central Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Hyderabad and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.33466 of 2010
Between:
Date: 30.12.2010
M/s. Sri Tirumala Foods & Feed, Ranga Reddy District
AND
..... Petitioner
The Central Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited,Hyderabad and another
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A. Bhuvana Sunder Reddy Counsel for Respondents:Sri O. Manohar Reddy, standing counsel for AP TRANSCO
The Court made the following:
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.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside theprovisional assessment notice dated 13.07.2010 issued by respondentNo.2.
The petitioner is a consumer of the respondents and engaged inthe business of manufacture of animal feed. On the basis of inspectionconducted on 29.05.2010 at 20.00 hrs by the Assistant DivisionalEngineer/SD-I DPE, RR South, a provisional assessment notice dated13.07.2010 was served on the petitioner provisionally assessing thevalue of the energy allegedly misused by the petitioner atRs.1,15,639/-. The petitioner was called upon to pay 50% of the said amount apart from payment of compounding fee of Rs.75,000/-. Thepetitioner averred that both the said demands were complied with. Insupport of this plea, the petitioner has filed a copy of receipt dated24.07.2010.
The grievance of the petitioner on which the present writ petitionis filed is that despite pendency of the proceedings for determination ofthe petitioner’s final liability, the respondents have been demandingpayment of entire provisional assessment amount.
In my opinion, the provisional assessment, being subject to finaldetermination of the petitioner’s liability, demand of the entire amountbefore such determination, on the facts of the present case, does notappear to be proper and reasonable. Inasmuch as the petitioner hasnot only paid 50% of the provisional assessment amount but alsoentire compounding fee, in the interest of justice, the power supply tothe petitioner’s service connection shall not be disconnected tilldetermination of the petitioner’s liability by the competent Court underSection 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Therefore, the respondents shall initiate immediate steps to getthe final liability of the petitioner determined by the competent Courtand continue the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection tillsuch determination is made subject to its paying future C.C. chargesregularly.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.42442of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.
________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
30[th] December, 2010GHN