reiterated his contentions as raised before the learned single Judge. It is not in dispute that the present feeder through which the petitioner gets supply is a feeder meant exclusively for the consumers under agricultural category. Hence, if the appellant/petitioner wants to change his category of supply to Commercial-II category, the said feeder could not have been utilized for the respondents and the supply to the petitioner had to be given through appropriate feeder only. For that purpose, the revised estimate of additional charges was given to the petitioner, which the petitioner declined to pay. The demand of the Respondents for the additional charges, which are to be incurred by them for change of feeder cannot therefore be said to be unsustainable or arbitrary inasmuch as Clause 5.3.2 of the terms and conditions of supply clearly supports such a claim. The power supply from the existing Feeder, being purely agricultural feeder, is having only 7 hours supply of power and when the petitioner desire to increase the supply from 7 hours to 18 hours, the service line from the existing feeder is to be changed to other nearby Rural feeder of 11KV i.e., RamaraogudemDharmaraopeta Feeder, which is having 18 hours supply. Hence, the demand for additional charges for change of Feeder was clearly justified. Therefore, the learned single Judge is right in not accepting the request of the appellant/petitioner and in dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, we see no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
