WP/39735/2012 of M/s. Parasakti Cement Industries Ltd., Vs Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., on 28 December 2012

ORDER:

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

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction by way ofmandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in levying penaltypurported to be on account of demand without reconciling for thepower and demand consumed by the petitioner – Company throughShort Term Open Access from M/s. Manikaran Power Limited, asillegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003and Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Open Access in InterState Transmission) Regulations, 2008.

The petitioner is a cement industry, having its manufacturing unitat Jettipalem Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District. There isan existing HT agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.1with a contracted CMD of 20000 KVA (20 MW).

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the penaltiesimposed, on account of violating the provisions under the Restrictionand Control Measures approved by Andhra Pradesh ElectricityRegulatory Commission, while issuing the consumption bill for themonth of November, 2012.

The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the bill issued forthe month of November, 2012, dated 30.11.2012, in the materialpapers. The aforesaid bill is issued for a total amount ofRs.6,01,87,514/-, which includes Fuel Surcharge Adjustment charges also. Immediately after the said bill, a revised bill, dated 30.11.2012,was issued for an amount of Rs.5,73,02,364/-, which is also beingdisputed by the petitioner. After the revised bill is issued, the petitionersubmitted representation, dated 17.12.2012, which is addressed to theSuperintending Engineer (Operation) of APSPDCL, Guntur. A copy ofthe said representation is also placed on record. From a perusal of thesaid representation, it is the allegation of the petitioner that whileissuing the revised bill, dated 30.11.2012, the respondents haveincluded the power consumed by the petitioner through Open Access.It is claimed that wrongly the respondents have issued a bill to a tuneof Rs.86,50,840.32 ps., on account of clubbing the power consumedby the petitioner through Open Access and further an amount ofRs.15,96,517.60 ps. is also not payable by the petitioner which ischarged on account of Fuel Surcharge Adjustment charges.

When the matter was listed on earlier occasion, it was adjournedto enable the learned standing counsel to obtain instructions. Oninstructions, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel that therespondents are taking steps to consider the representation filed by thepetitioner. It is further submitted that the software is not readilyavailable to segregate the power as such and it will take some moretime to consider the request of the petitioner.

In the representation, dated 17.12.2012, it is categorically statedthat by obtaining permission from the respondents, the petitioner hasprocured power from Open Access during the period of billing month ofNovember, 2012. It is also stated that towards the bill for the month ofNovember, 2012, the petitioner has already paid an amount ofRs.3,78,52,390/-.

In this Case, it is not in dispute that the revised bill, dated30.11.2012, is inclusive of the power procured by the petitionerthrough Open Access System. Whether such power to be excluded forthe purpose of billing or not, is a matter which is to be considered inthe representation filed by the petitioner, dated 17.12.2012. As it isstated that it will take some more time to look into the representation ofthe petitioner and as the petitioner is disputing the liability only to theextent of Rs.86,50,840.32 ps., on account of Open Access andRs.15,96,517.60 ps. on account of Fuel Surcharge Adjustmentcharges, out of the total bill amount of Rs.5,73,02,364/-, I deem itappropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition permitting the petitioner todeposit a further amount of Rs.1,02,47,357.92 ps. (Rupees One CroreTwo Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven Rupeesand Ninety Two Paise). On deposit of such amount, the respondentsare directed not to take any coercive steps for payment of the balanceamount. The respondents are further directed to consider therepresentation of the petitioner, dated 17.12.2012, which is madedisputing the revised bill, dated 30.11.2012, and pass appropriateorders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time,on paying the aforesaid amount, no further steps shall be taken todisconnect the power supply to the petitioner. It is made clear that afterdisposal of the representation as directed above, if any balance billamount is due, it is open to the respondents to collect the same afterintimating to the petitioner.

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall standclosed. No costs.

December 28, 2012MD

________________________

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.39735 OF 2012

December 28, 2012

MD