M/S.Sri Venkata Lakshmi And Oil Mill, v. The Asst.Divisional Engineer, Operations, Narsannapeta

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6555 of 2011 Date:20.8.2015 Between:

M/s Sri Venkata Lakshmi Rice & Oil Mill, Narsannapet Village & Mandal, Srikakulam District, reptd by its Proprietor-Sri T.Venkat Rao ..... Petitioner And:

The Assistant Divisional Engineer, (Operations), Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P., Narsannapet and another.

.....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P.Balaji Varma For Mr. Kamatham Govardhan Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. T.V.Suman For Mr. M.Ravindra Standing Counsel for APEPDCL The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Lr.No.ADE/OSD/NPT/F.No.

/D.No.1987/ 09, dated 20.12.2009 and the consequential disconnection letter No.ADE/O/NPT/FNo.08/09-10, D.No.156/11, dated 09.02.2011, of respondent No.1. Mr. P.Balaji Varma, learned counsel representing Mr. Kamatham Govardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under the impugned notice, respondent No.1 has arrived at the conclusion that

the petitioner has exceeded the contracted load based on meter reading, instead of relying upon the equipment that was actually connected by the petitioner. He has further submitted that identical notices were challenged in a batch of Writ Petitions, one such Writ Petition being W.P.No.9861 of 2010 and that this Court by order, dated 13.6.2012, set aside the said notice and directed physical verification to note the manufacturers' ratings of each item of apparatus and issue a fresh notice. He has further submitted that the said order was confirmed in a batch of Writ Appeals, viz., Writ Appeal No.949 of 2012 and batch, by a Division Bench of this Court by common judgment, dated 01.7.

2013, with a slight modification to the effect that instead of physical verification, the respondents shall issue fresh notices based on the actual connected load, receive the objections, if any, from the consumers and pass a speaking order. Learned counsel, therefore, requested that this Writ Petition may also be disposed of in terms of the common judgment, dated 01.7.2013, in Writ Appeal No.949 of 2012 and batch.

I have carefully considered these submissions of the learned counsel and perused the order, dated 13.6.2012, in Writ Petition No.9861 of 2010 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court and the common judgment, dated 01.7.2013, in Writ Appeal No.949 of 2012 and batch and I am convinced that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is identical to that adjudicated in the above judgments.

Mr. T.V.Suman, learned counsel representing Mr. M.Ravindra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, has not disputed this position. In the light of the above facts, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of common judgment, dated

01.7.2013, in Writ Appeal No.949 of 2012 and batch, with the direction that the reasons and directions contained therein shall form part of this order.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.8160 of 2011 and WVMP.No.2754 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous.

________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 20th August 2015 DR