WP/19370/2008 of M/s. Nalamati Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd., Seesali, Vs M/s. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., on 24 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULUWRIT PETITION NO : 19370 of 2008

Between:

M/s. Nalamati Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd., Seesali, Kalla Mandal,Bhimavaram - 534 237 West Godavari District, rep. by its Managing Director Mr.N.Janakiramaiah.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 M/s. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.,Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Managing Director.2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Eastern PowerDistribution Company of A.P. Limited, Eluru, West Godavari District, A.P.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or orderor direction declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding therefund of the security deposit amount of Rs.6,82,400/- relating to H.T.Service No.ELR 328 of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, withoutjurisdiction, contrary to the terms and conditions of supply and the lawsgoverning the supply of electrical energy and consequently direct therespondents to refund the security deposit amount to the petitionerforthwith with interest @ 12% p.a. from 15.09.2007 onwards till date ofpayment.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GIRISH KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondents: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FORAPTRANSCO)

The Court made the following :

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring theaction of the respondents in withholding refund of the security depositamount of Rs.6,82,400/- relating to H.T. Service No. ELR 328 of thepetitioner as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms of supply and thelaws governing the supply of electrical energy; consequently, to direct therespondents to refund the security deposit amount to the petitioner,forthwith, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 15.9.2007onwards till the date of payment.

The facts are not much in dispute. It appears, the petitionerpurchased a closed down Industrial Unit from 3[rd] party. By that time, theelectricity meter connected to the Unit was already burnt out andelectricity was not supplied for more than two months and the petitionergot the electricity supply restored on 4.7.1999. While that being so, on31.12.2002 a back-billing assessment order was issued in the name ofthe petitioner’s vendor for Rs.2,38,529/-. However, the petitionerchallenged the said order by way of W.P. 25087 of 2003. The said writpetition was allowed setting aside the impugned assessment ordertherein. The respondents, being aggrieved by the order made in the saidwrit petition, filed W.A. No. 909 of 2005 and the same is pending, but nostay of the order passed by the learned single Judge was granted. Itappears, after filing this writ petition, the respondents have moved anapplication in the writ appeal, seeking an interim order permitting them towithhold an amount of Rs.2,38,529/-. The said application is still pendingand was directed to be posted along with the writ appeal.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of thependency of the writ appeal, to meet the ends of justice I deem it proper todirect the respondents to refund the balance amount from Rs,6,82,400/-,after deducting the disputed amount, which is the subject matter of writappeal, i.e. Rs.2,38,529/-, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

C.V. RAMULU, J.

Date: 24-12-2008.

MVB.