Quashed

M/s. Mutyalamma Modern Rice and G.N.Oil Mill, v. The Asst. Divisional Engineer

Telangana HC13 Jun 2012WP/19579/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a demand for regularization of additional electricity load is unsustainable if based merely on meter readings without physical verification. The court set aside the notice, remanding the matter for fresh determination after aggregating manufacturer ratings of all apparatus, as required by the Guidelines for Electric Power Supply.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice is set aside and the matter is remitted for physical verification of apparatus ratings.

M/s. Mutyalamma Modern Rice and G.N.Oil Mill, Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWELEVE

¶3

PRESENT::

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶5

W.P.No.19579 OF 2011

¶6

Between:-

¶7

M/s Mutyalamma Modern Rice & G.N.Oil Mill, Srikurman village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District, Rep. by its Partner

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

A n d

¶10

Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, Srikakulam Town, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd., Srikakulam, Srikakulam District and another

¶11

…Respondents

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶13

W.P.No.19579 OF 2011

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the demand dated 30.03.2010 issued by the respondents as arbitrary and illegal.

¶16

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-

¶17

EPCPDCL. Perused the record.

¶18

3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of rice mill, having secured electricity supply through service connection No.207 under Category III (A). On 05.03.2010, the 2^nd respondent-Divisional Engineer inspected the premises of the petitioner and appears to have found that the load connected by the petitioner was 84 HP while the contracted load was 65 HP. The petitioner was not aware of any such inspection as no notice was issued regarding the same and a copy of the inspection report was also not furnished. Pursuant to the alleged inspection, the 1^st respondent issued notice dated 30.03.2010 suggesting the petitioner to regularize additional load by paying an amount of Rs.38,150/-. As per condition 12.3.3 in the event the respondents come to a conclusion that the consumer has connected additional load, a notice to that effect is to be given with all the relevant material and after considering the objections made by the consumer, the respondents shall determine the issue relating to collection of additional load. No such notice has been issued to the petitioner and no material is also furnished to show that the petitioner has exceeded the contracted load. This Court in the order dated 08.06.2009 in W.P.No.1037 of 2009 and batch held that the consumer is entitled to a notice under Condition 12.3.3 of the GTCS.

¶19

4. The respondents filed a counter contending that at the time of inspection it was observed that unauthorized additional load was connected and accordingly a notice dated 31.03.2010 was issued for regularization of the additional load. As per Clause 12.3.3.1 and 12.3.3.2 of the GTCS, once the consumer exceeds the sanctioned contracted load, the same has to be regularized for which one month notice will be given. The MD meters provided to the consumer services will have the energy parameters and consumer is paying the charges as per the ratings of the said meter without any dispute but in the matter of regularization of unauthorized additional load, the consumer is raising a dispute. The APERC directed the DISCOMS to provide the HT Trivector meters on par with HT services for those

¶20

LT industrial services having connected load of 50 HP and above. The department is losing huge amount of revenue as the unathorised additional load is neither getting regularized nor the amounts are being paid by the consumer.

¶21

5. It is not disputed that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondents for supply of electricity as LT category III(A) consumer for a contracted load of 65 HP for running the rice mill unit. According to the respondents, during the course of inspection of the meter on 05.03.2010 it was found that the load connected by the

¶22

petitioner was 84 HP as against the contracted load of only 65 HP. The respondents issued a notice dated 30.03.2010 demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.38,150/- for regularization of the additional load. The petitioner raised objection denying that he has exceeded the contracted load at anytime. It is not disputed that this Court in earlier order dated 08.06.2009 in W.P.No.1037 of 2009 and batch held that if the respondents come to the conclusion that the consumer has connected additional load, a notice to that effect has to be given along with the relevant material to show that the consumer has exceeded the contracted load and objections be invited in terms of Condition 12.3.3 and after considering the objections, if any, the respondents shall have to determine the issue regarding the factum of connection of additional load. The demands made in the above batch of writ petitions, which were not preceded by any such notice or opportunity of filing objections, were accordingly quashed with liberty to initiate action afresh after following the procedure.

¶23

6. The petitioner alleges that in spite of the earlier directions, the respondents have not furnished any material to substantiate their claim that the petitioner has exceeded the contracted load nor any opportunity of hearing was given and going by the meter reading alone, which has no bearing over the question of exceeding the

¶24

contracted load, the respondents have been insisting on regularization of the additional load with threat of disconnection. According to the respondents, no notice was issued based on the available meter data which contains the usage of load in terms of KVA which can be converted into HT. The respondents would further contend that the voltage supplied is almost the same within the specified limits to the consumer and if the consumer uses extra or additional load, it is inevitable to draw extra current for the extra load.

¶25

7. The specific contention of the petitioner is that without

¶26

there being physical verification of load with reference to the manufacturers ratings of the various motors etc., used by the consumer, it is not possible to determine the actual load connected

¶27

by the consumer and whether or not it exceeds the contracted load. The respondents, on the other hand, would contend that physical verification is not necessary and the meter fixed to the service would show the excess usage of load and the meters fixed being HT TVR category are sophisticated and technologically advanced. It is stated that the Vidyuth Ombudsman in similar matters raised before him has by order dated 24.05.2008 upheld the course of action adopted by the respondents in determining the excess load going by the maximum

¶28

demand recorded instead of physical verification. In the said order, the Vidyuth Ombudsman opined that in the absence of challenge to the metering with MD recording facility as unscientific or otherwise defective, the appellants cannot insist for physical verification of load. It was, therefore, held that there was no infirmity in the observation of the forum that physical verification is not necessary and the contention of the consumers that issuance of notice for regularization of additional load without conducting physical verification of load is liable for rejection. Admittedly, such a course of action of going by the meter recording alone for determining the question as to whether or not the consumer exceeded the contracted load without physical verification, has no sanction of law.

¶29

8. Condition 2.2.9 of the GTCS defines the expression “connected load” as meaning the aggregate of the manufacturer’s rating of all the apparatus including portable apparatus on the consumer’s premises. This shall be expressed in kW or HP. If the ratings are in kVA the same should be converted to kW by multiplying the kVA with power factor of 0.90. If some or any of the apparatus is rated by manufacturers in HP, the HP ratings shall be converted into kW by multiplying it by 0.746. Condition 2.2.12 defines the “contracted load” as meaning the connected load in kW, kVA or HP which the consumer requires in his installation and is so specified in the supply

¶30

agreement between the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner entered into an agreement with a contracted load of 65 HP. According to the zrespondents, the connected load was found to be 84 HP and

¶31

thus the petitioner has exceeded the contracted load by 19 HP.

¶32

Thus, as per Condition 2.2.9 of the GTCS, the connected load has to be measured by aggregating the manufacturers ratings of all the apparatus and if necessary by converting the ratings in KVA into HP. Admittedly, no such exercise of aggregating the ratings of the manufacturers on the apparatus has been undertaken by way of physical verification and the respondents have simply gone by the meter reading for the purpose of determining the excess load alleged to have been connected by the consumer. The respondents have, thus, followed a procedure which has no sanction of law and failed to comply with the procedure prescribed in the relevant clauses of the GTCS. Even in the format prescribed in Appendix IX for issuance of notice for development charges, physical inspection is contemplated and the contracted load and connected load are required to be noted as per the physical inspection. The notice required to be issued under Condition 12.3.3.1 shall be in accordance with the format prescribed in Appendix IX, which format contemplates physical inspection.

¶33

The contention of the respondents that as HT TVR meters are installed, physical inspection is no longer required, cannot be countenanced, as the same is not contemplated by the statute or the GTCS.

¶34

9. The impugned notice, demanding regularization of the additional load based on the MD recording of the meter without physical inspection to note the manufacturers’ ratings on the apparatus is, therefore, held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondents for fresh consideration after conducting physical verification of the manufacturers’ ratings of each item of apparatus for the purpose of determining the excess load, if any, connected by the petitioner. The amount already paid by the petitioner shall be subject to result of fresh determination pursuant to remand.

¶35

10. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶37

13^th June, 2012 Lrkm

M/s. Mutyalamma Modern Rice and G.N.Oil Mill, v. The Asst. Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Mutyalamma Modern Rice and G.N.Oil Mill, v. The Asst. Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guvvala Sayamma, Vs The District Collector

Chintapandu Venkateshwarlu Vs The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary

M/s Khabri Exports, Vs a.P.Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. (Apcpdcl)

M/s. Jai Balaji Modern Rice Mill Vs Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations

M/s. C.V.R. Constructions, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited

M/s. Sri Satyanarayana Modern Roce Mill, Vs Assistant Divisional engineer