Partly allowed

Agarwal Foundaries,Bashirabad,Qutubullapur, R.R.District v. Central Power Distribution Co. of Ap.,Ltd., and 2 Others

Telangana HC26 Oct 2022WA/688/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a lower order suspending power consumption surcharges and dismissed appeals from the power company and the petitioner, directing that surcharges apply for all periods of excess demand.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order suppressing surcharge; directed surcharge to be levied for all excess consumption periods.

Agarwal Foundaries,Bashirabad,Qutubul… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32e51

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V, BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT APPEAL Nos.688, 745 and 959 of 2007

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 688 OF 2007

¶8

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the order

¶9

daled 26.07.2007 in W.P.No.11973 of 2004, on the file of the High Court.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Agaruval Foundaries, Bashirabad Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Pramod Aganral, S/o Sri tVlaniklal Aganival, Aged 44 years, No 2-1-113, Tobacco Bazar, Secunderabad.

¶12

...Appellant

¶13

AND

¶14

Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶15

Superintending Engineer (Operation), Ranga Reddy (North) Gun Rock, Secunderabad-15.

¶16

Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Ranga Reddy North, Gun Rock, Secunderabad- 1 5.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

l.A. NO: 5 OF 2007(WAMP. NOjl938 !E ?007)

¶19

Petition under Section^'1 5'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to make Local lnspection and note the Physical Features of the Feeder Supplying^power to^petitioner Factory as otheruvise I will put to serious and irreparable loss and hardship.

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2007(WA MP. NO: 1388 OF 2007)

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to permit the petitioner to file the letter No.GM(Comml) S.C. (C) DE(CyADElll/ D.No.152 daled 28.O4.2007 issued by the Chief Engineer APCPDCL, in the WA as Ex.P16 as otherwise the petitioner will be put to serious and irreparable loss and hardship.

¶22

WRIT APPEAL NO: 745 OF 2007

¶23

Writ Appeal under Clause^'15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26-7-2007 in W.P.No.1171 5 of 2007 on the file of the High Court.

¶24

Between:

¶25

{garwal^{Foundries, Bqshirabad, Qutbullapur Mandal,RangaReddy District,} lgprb.y^{its^ProprietorSri Pramod Agan,ual,S/o Sri Manikalal Agarvlal, aged 44 years} F/o 2- 1- 1 1 3, Tobaco Bazar, Seunderabad.

¶26

AND

¶27

...Appellant

¶28

Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., rep. byitsChairman& -^{Manqging Director, Singaveni Bhavan, Lakadikapool,Hyderabad.} 2. The Chief General Manage.r Commercial APCPDCL., 3id Ftoor, Singareni Bhavan, Lakadikapool, Hyderabad.

¶29

The Chief General Manager, Ranga Reddy, Zone Budha Bhavan, Secunderabad.

¶30

The Superintending Engineer (Operation), APCPDCL., Ranga Reddy (North), Secunderabad - 15.

¶31

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2007(WAMP. NO: 1492OF 2007 )

¶32

... Respondents

¶33

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondent to enhance the CMD of the petitioner to 6000 KVA without insisting for the payments of line charges with interest and pilferage charges stipulated in the letter daled 28-4^2007 issued by the Chief General Manager of the 1st respondent company as otherwise the petitioner will be put to serious and irreparable loss and hardship.

¶34

t.A. N O: 2 OF 2007 WAMP. NO:16 260 F 200 7

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order for correction of the order dated 14-9-2007 passed in W.A.No.745 of 2007 as pray for in W.A.M.P.No.'1492 of 2OO7 viz., direct the respondents to enhance the CMD of the petitioner to 6000 KVA without insisting for payment of line charges with interest and pilferage charges stipulated in the letter dated 28-4-2OO7 of the Chief General Manager the 1st respondent as per my prayer in WAMP No.14g2 of 2007 as otherwise the petitioner will be put to serious loss and hardship.

¶36

WRIT APPEAL NO: 959 OF 2007

¶37

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the order dated 26.07.2007 in W.P.No.'1 1973 of 2004 on the file of the High Court.

¶38

Between:

¶39

'1 . Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and ltlanaging Director, Singareni bhavan, Lakad ikapool, Hyderabad.

¶40

1. Superintending Engineer (Operation), Ranga Reddy (North) Gun Rock, Secunderabad-1 5.

¶41

Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Ranga Reddy (North), Gun Rock, Secunderabad.

¶42

Appellants/Respondents

¶43

AND

¶44

Agarurral Foundaries, Bashirabad, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Proprietor Sri Pramod Agarwal, S/o.Sri tr/anikala Agarwal,^PJo.2-1-113, Tobacco Bazar, Secunderabad.

¶45

.RespondenUWrit Petitioner

¶46

Counsel for the Appellant in all W.As.: SRI M.P. CHANDRA MOULI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. BANALA SURESH

¶47

Counsel for the Respondents in all W.As.: SRI R. VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL

¶48

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶49

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHtryAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶50

WRIT APPEAL Nos.688. 745 and 959 of2OO7

¶51

COMMON JUDGMENT: t'er the Hon'bte the chiel Justice Ltjjat Bhu!1 1)

¶52

This ordera,ill dispose of writ appeal Nos.688, 745 and 959 of 2OO7.

¶53

Writ appeal Nos.6B8 and 745 of 2OO7 have been hled by Agarwai Foundries as the appellant, whereas writ appeal No.959 of 2OO7 has been filed by Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (now Telangana) and two of its officers who are the respondents in writ appeal Nos.688 aod 745 of 2OO7.In writ appeal No.959 of 2OO7, Agarwal Foundries is the respondent. A11 the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 26.07.2O07 passed by the learned Single Judge partly allowing writ petition No.11973 of 2OO4 and dismissing writ petition Nos.11715 of 2OO7, both filed by Agarwal Foundries as the writ petitioner.

¶54

Writ appeal No.688 of 2OO7 arises out of writ petition No.l1973 of 2OO4 whereby the learned Single Judge held

¶55

)

¶56

that appellant Agarwal Foundries would be liable to^pay surcharge only from the date of delivery of^judgment i.e., 26.07 .2007 in the event power consumption exceeds the permissible limit. Writ appeal No.745 of 2007 has been file d by Agarwal F oundries as the appellant against dismissal of W.P.No.177 15 of 2OO7.

¶57

On the other hand, writ appeal No.959 ol 2007 has been liled by Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (now Telangana) along with two other oflicials as the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge partly allowing W.P.No.11973 of 2OO4 holding that surcharge levied upto the date of^judgment i.e., 26.O7 .2007 cannot be sustained.

¶58

We have heard Mr. M.P.Chandramouli, learned counsel for the appellant, Agarwal Foundries in W.A.Nos.688 arld 745 of 2OO7 which is also the respondent in W.A. No.959 of 2OO7. We have also heard Mr. R.Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, Central^Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited^(nou'

¶59

Telangana) and two others in W.A.Nos.6BB and 745 of 2OO7 who are the appellants in W.A.No.959 of 2OO7.

¶60

As noted above, Agarwal Foundries as the writ petitioner had filed the related two writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos. 11973 of 2OO4 and W.P.No. 11715 of 2OO7 before the learned Single Judge. In W.P.No.lI973 of 2004, the prayer made was for declaration that the action of the Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (now Telangana) (briefly, 'Power Distribution Company' hereinafter) in lelying voltage surcharge for the High Tension (HT) Service Connection RRD No.62O on the demand charges and on the consumption of enerry by the writ petitioner and consequent thereupon raising bill dated 26.06.2004 with voltage surcharge as wholly arbitrar5r, illegal and without jurisdiction. Writ petitioner further sought for a direction to the respondents to issue a revised bill without voltage surcharge for the billing months of May and June, 2OO4 and thereafter for future months.

¶61

In W.P.No.11715 of 2007, tl:e prayer made was for a declaration that the action ol the Chief General Manager

¶62

¶63

(Commercial), Power Distribution Company in stipulating a condition for payment of charges with interest for availing the 33 KV independent feeder from 220/L32/33/KV Shapurnagar substation for sanctioning additional contracted maximum demand of 4499 KVA to the writ petitioner AS lr.ho1ly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶64

Writ petitioner is a small scale industry and a manufacturer of mild steel ingots. It has an induction furnace which needs HT power supply. Writ petitioner obtained power supply from the Power Distribution Company as well as from private power producers. Initially writ petitioner received electricity from 11 KV line. In July, 2OOO on its request, the contracted load of the writ petitioner was enhanced to 1501 KVA and the supply was channelled through a 33 KV feeder. A portion of 33 KV line was installed and erected by the writ petitioner on its own cost though with the permission of the Power Distribution Company.

¶65

¶66

9 . The extent of power consumption by the writ petitioner fluctuated from time to time; on certain occasions consumption exceeded 5000 KVA.

¶67

A tariff order was passed by the then Andhra Pradesh trlectricity Regulatory Commission on 23.03.2O04 dealing with various aspects of power supply, consumption and tariff. In the said order, general conditions of HT electricity supply were indicated. Amongst others, it prescribed the limits of strpply that could be consumed by the consumers. The Regulatory Commission mandated a distinction between HT consumers availing supply through common feeder on the one hand and HT consumers consuming electricity through independent feeders on the other hand. Consumers of the first category were permitted fluctuation upto 33000 volts if the contracted maximum demand lvas 1501 KVA to 5000 KVA. If the contracted maximum demand exceeded 5OOO KVA, such excess consumption would attract ler,y of surcharge. For the second category of consumption, the ma-ximum limit was stipulated at 10000 KVA.

¶68

¶69

I 1 . On the ground that consumption by the writ petitioner exceeded 5OOO KVA at times, surcharge was levied by the Power Distribution Company as and when consumption exceeded the said limit. Such surcharge was levied on the premise that writ petitioner was supplied power through a common feeder. In this connection, a bill dated 26.06.2004 was issued to the writ petitioner 1n which surcharge was levied.

¶70

Aggrieved, W.P.No.11973 of 2OO4 came to be filed before this Court.

¶71

Writ petitioner applied for sanction of load of 4499 KVA in addition to the existing contracted maximum demand of 1501 KVA. Power Distribution Company sanctioned the same vide proceedings dated O7.O4.2OO1 which was made subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the writ petitioner should meet the cost of the existing 33 KV line from the point of its origin to get the status of an independent feeder. Several correspondences were exchanged thereafter between the

¶72

¶73

parties. Writ petitioner insisted that it was alreadv being supplied porner through an independent leeder of 33 KV and therefore, it u,as not necessarl/ to bear additional expenses. Ultimately, vide proceedings dated 28.O4.2OO7 , Chief General Manager of the Power Distribution Company directed the writ petitioner to pay the charges in the form of cost of 33 KV feeder from 22O / L32 133 KV Shapurnagar substation as a condition precedent for sanction of additional 4499 KVA, totalling to 6000 KVA (4499 KVA⁺ 1501 KVA). The aforesaid proceedings dated 28.O4.2OO7 came to be challenged before this Court b1' Agarwal Foundries in W.P.No. l1715 of 2OO7 .

¶74

Primarv contention of the writ petitioner u'as that it was already being suppiied power through an independent feeder. Therefore there was no basis for Power Distribution Company in treating it as common feeder. Reference was made and reliance was placed on letters of various authorities of the Power Distribution Company certifying the leeder to be an independent one. Therefore, it was

¶75

¶76

contended that the Power Distribution Company was not at all justified in treating the feeder line as a common feeder.

¶77

1 5. On behalf of the respondent i.e., Power Distribution Company, two affidavits were filed in the two writ petitions contesting the same. In the affidavits, Power Distribution Company explained the distinction between common feeder, independent feeder and dedicated feeder. It was the stand of the Power Distribution Company that the feeder through which the writ petitioner was supplied electricity was not an independent or dedicated feeder. It was a common feeder. If that be the position, the maximum load that could be supplied to the writ petitioner was 5OO0 KVA. The load could not exceed 5000 KVA. In the event there was demand and consumption beyond 5000 KVA, it would attract surcharge in terms of the tariff order dated 23.O3.2OO4. Therefore, Power Distribution Company sought for dismissal of both the writ petitions contending that the writ petitions were misconceived.

¶78

In the course of hearing, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that right from the initial stage when

¶79

¶80

the 1 1 KV feeder was converted to 33 KV feecler, it was treated as an independent one for the writ petitioner. Writ petitioner had not only incurred the expenditure in laying the line but had also paid supervising and other related charges. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that action of the Power Distribution Company in lev-ving surcharge against the writ petitioner whenever the maximum demand exceeded 5000 KVA or requiring the writ petitioner to pay cost of the feeder line that emanated from the 220 KV substation was wholly unreasonable, arbit rarv and irrational.

¶81

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Power Distribution Company submitted that the writ petitioner was supplied power through a common feeder r.r,hich could neither be treated as an independent nor as a dedicatecl feeder. Letters addressed by some of ttre officials to the writ petitioner contrary to the factuai situation or the tariff order would not confer any right on the writ petitioner. Supporting the action of the Power Distribution

¶82

¶83

Company, it was submitted that the u,rit petitions were misconceived and therefore, those should be dismissed.

¶84

Learned Single Judge by the common^judgment and order dated 26.07.2OO7 held that because of uncertainty due to communications of various officials of the Power Distribution Company, writ petitioner was under the impression that it could cross the 5000 KVA mark without paying any extra lery beyond the normal charge. Therefore, the surcharge levied till the date of the^judgment was set aside by the learned Single Judge. However, it was directed that the writ petitioner would be liable to pay surcharge whenever it crosses the maximum demand of 50OO KVA post the date of the judgment. On the other hand, learned Single Judge on the basis of the materials on record held was that the feeder through which the writ petitioner supplied electricity was neither an independent nor a dedicated one. Therefore, the conditions mentioned in the proceedings dated 28.04.2007 would have to be complied with. Consequently, W.P.No.1l973 of 2004 was partly ailowed whereas W.P.No.1 1715 of 2007 was dismissed.

¶85

¶86

Mr. M.P.Chandramouli, learned counsel for the appellant Agarwal Foundries submits that it was crystal clear from the communication of various officials of the Power Distribution Company that for all intent and purpose the authorities had treated the feeder through which electricity was supplied to the writ petitioner as an independent one. Therefore, question of lelying any surcharge in the event of demand exceeding 5OOO KVA did not arise at ail. Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. He submits that learned Single Judge had further failed to consider the unanimous view of all officials of the Power Distribution Company that the feeder through which electricity was supplied to the writ petitioner was an independent one. Therefore, question of writ petitioner bearing any additional cost in terms of the proceedings dated 28.04.2007 did not arise.

¶87

Per contra, Mr. R.Vinod Reddy, learnecl counsel representing the Power Distribution Company submits that learned Single Judge was justified ln holding that the concerned feeder was a common feeder ancl not an

¶88

¶89

independent or a dedicated feeder. Therefore, the writ petitioner was bound by the conditions stipulated in the proceedings dated 28.04.2007. In so far lely of surcharge is concerned, he submits that there was no basis for the learned Single Judge to interfere with the levy of surcharge prior to the date of judgment. He therefore submits that while learned Single Judge was justified 1n dismissing

¶90

W.P.No.11715 of 2OO7, he erred in partly allowing W.P.No.11.973 of 2O04. According to him, both the writ petitions should have been dismissed.

¶91

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court.

¶92

At the outset, we may advert to the tariff order dated 23.O3.2OO4 passed by the then Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, relevant portion of which is extracted as under:

¶93

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF H.T. SUPPLY

¶94

The foregoing tariffs are subject to the following conditions: (r) A. VOLTAGE OF SUPPLY

¶95

The voltage at which supply has to be availed by:

¶96

(i) HT consumers, availing supply on common feeders shall be: For Total Contracted Demand with the Licensee and all

¶97

¶98

other sources like A.P.G.P.C.L., Mini Hydel, Wind Power, MPPs, Co-generating Plants etc. Upto 1500 KVA 11000 Volts 1501 KVA to 5000 KVA 33000 Volts Above 5000 KVA 132000 Volts or 222000 Volts as may be decided by Licensee

¶99

(ii) HT Consumers availing supply through independent leeders from the substations shall be:

¶100

For total Contracted Demand with the licensees and all other sources like APGPCL, Mini Hydel, Wind Powers,

¶101

MPPs, Co-generating plants etc.

¶102

Upto 2500 KVA 1 1000 Volts 2501 KVA to 10,000 KVA 33000 Volts Above 10000 KVA 132000 Volts or 220000 Volts

¶103

The relaxations are subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:

¶104

(a) The consumer should have an exclusive dedicated feeder from the sub-station;

¶105

(b) The consumer shall pay full cost of the service line as perstandards specified by APTRANSCO/DISCOM including take off arrangements at substation;

¶106

¶107

From the above, it is evident that for HT consumers

¶108

availing supply of electricity through common feeder shall be 1100O volts upto 1500 KVA; 33000 volts between 1501 KVA to 5000 KVA; and 132000 volts or 22OOOO volts as may be decided by the licencee, ln the event electricity

¶109

1.1

¶110

supply exceeded 50OO KVA. On the other hand, in respect of HT consumers availing electricity supply through independent feeders from the substations, it shall be 110O0 volts upto 2500 KVA; 33OO0 volts between 250 1 KVA to 1OOOO KVA; and 132OOO volts or 22OOOO volts as the case may be in the event supply exceeded 1OOOO KVA. However, there would be rela-xation in the event of the consumer using exclusive dedicated feeder from the substation.

¶111

Learned Single Judge summarised the facts as well as the rival contentions in the following manner:

¶112

As pointed out in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioner was initially supplied power through I I KV feeder. At the request made by the petitioner, the maximum demand was enhanced to 1501 KVA. This required the supply through 11 KV feeder. Through their letter dated 06-09-2000, the Superintending Engineer, Operation, permitted the petitioner to erect the required length of 33 KV line, at its own cost, to connect an existing line, at a distance of about 300 meters. Apart from that, the pelitioner was required to pay supervising charges of lOo/o of the cost. According to the tariff order dated 03.06.2000, the limits were fixed for the fluctuation of maximum demand/consumption of power. This, in turn, depcnded upon the nature and character of the feeder, through which the consumer is supplied

¶113

)

¶114

the power. [n case, the power supply is through a common feeder, the fluctuations can touch 5,000 KVA. If it exceeded that, it invited surcharge. On the other hand, if the supply is through an exclusive feeder, the fluctuation can touch 10,000KVA,

¶115

The consumption of power/the maximum demand, by the petitioner exceeded 5,000 KVA, occasionally. Therefore, the respondents started lelying surcharge, as and when the limits were exceeded. The petitioner raised an objection to the lery of surcharge and challenged the action of the respondents. Simultaneously, it has taken steps to get the contracted maximum demand, enhanced to 6,000 KVA. Sanction was accorded for such enhancement, by imposing a condition, that the petitioncr shall meet the expenditure to get the feeder, emanating {rom 2201732/33KV Shapurnagar Substation, up to the transformer of the petitioner, classified as an independent feeder. This is resisted by the petitioner, on the ground that it is already being fed through an independent feeder, and the question its being required to pay the said amount.

¶116

It is no doubt true that several authorities of the respondents-company have addressed letters, suggesting that the petitioner is being supplied through an independent feeder. Reference in this context may be made, to the letter dated 11-08-2003, addressed by the Director, Commercial, the letter dated 31.07.2003, addressed by the Superintending Engineer, Operation/Ranga Reddy Circle (North) etc. The controversy does not, however, rest with that. Since serious consequences flow, either from the point of view of the petitioner, or that of the respondents, it needs a close scrutiny. The supply of electricity, generated at a

¶117

¶118

station, undergoes several transformations, by the time it reaches a consumer. It has to be stepped down, at various lcvels. The stepping dirwn takes place at three Ievels, in the context of supply to industries. In a substation of very high magnitude of 220 KV, the stepping down takes place to 132 KV and thereafter, to 33 KV. Normally, substations of 33 KV are located at different places. There, the further stepping down of 11 KV takes place. A feeder, in the parlance of electric supply, is the line, through which the power, in a stepped down version, flows from a substation. For instance, from 33 KV sub-station, the feeders of 11 KV emanate. Similarly, the feeders with the capacity of 33 KV have to emanate from a sub-station of higher capacity. The question of a feeder, carrying the power of the same intensity, as that of the sub-station; does not arlse

¶119

After analysing the difference between common feeder, independent feeder and dedicated feeder, learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the line that supplied electricity to the writ petitioner could not be construed to be an independent or dedicated feeder, meaning thereby that it was a common feeder. It was held thus:

¶120

From the facts placed before this Court, it is evident that the 33 KV feeders emanate from 220 I 132133 KV substation, at Shapurnagar. Before the 33 KV feeder reaches the premises of the petitioner, it serves the

¶121

¶122

needs of 33 KV substation, at Jeedimetla. It is also stated that some more consumers are served through the feeder. The line exclusively erected by the petitioner is only a small portion of 300 metres, at the end. The petitioner does not dispute that, except for the portion of 300 metres, rest of the line running into few kilometers, was erected by the respondents. Even if, it can be said thatthe petitioner is the exclusive beneficiary of that portion of the line, which it had erected, same cannot be said about the remaining portion.

¶123

To understand the issue from the common parlance, the petitioner can avail the beneht of the Clause-A(ii), if only it is being served directly and exclusively, through a line, which emanated from the sub-station at Shapurnagar, anil when no other consumers are permitted to draw power from it. Such a situation does not exist in the present case. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents, that the line that supplies power to the petitioner is not an independent or dedicated feeder cannot be found fault with.

¶124

26 . Alter holding so, learned Single Judge posed the questions as to whether levy of surcharge on the writ petitioner could be sustained? and r.r,hether the writ petitioner was liable to comply with the conditions stipulated in the proceedings dated 28.O4.2OO7?

¶125

27 . After referring to three letters dated 31.O7.2003, 11.08.2003 and 13.07.2OO4 addressed by the Director

¶126

¶127

(Commercial) and the Superintending Engineer (Operation) of the Power Distribution Company, learned Single Judge took the view that as the authorities were under the impression that the line was ari independent feeder and there was much uncertainty as a result of which the writ petitioner was under the impression that it could consume electricity beyond 5OOO KVA without paying additional le.,y in the form of surcharge. On this basis, learned Single Judge held that the surcharge levied upto the date of judgment could not be sustained. However, learned Single Judge held that the feeder through which electricity was supplied to the writ petitioner was neither an independent nor a dedicated feeder; therefore, the writ petitioner was bound to comply u,ith the conditions stipulated in the proceedings dated 28.O4.2OO7.It was held as follows:

¶128

Thus, the authorities treated the feeder, serving the petitioner, as an independent one. In fact, the Superintending Engineer addressed another letter, dated. l3-O7-2O04, to the Chief General Marager, recommending that it is not a case for ler,y of surcharge on the petitioner. When such was the uncertainty, the petitioner naturally reeled under ttre impression that it can cross 5OO0 KVA mark. Further, it is not as if the petitioncr did not pay for the power

¶129

¶130

consumed by it. Therefore, the surcharge levied, up to the date of the^judgment, cannot be sustainedHenceforth, the petitioner shall be liable to be levied the surcharge wherein it crosses the maximum demand of 5,O00 KVA, unless aly change takes place.

¶131

As regards the second aspect, it has a.lready been held that the feeder is not an independent or dedicated one for the petitioner, and in that vierv of the matter, the conditions pointed in the proceedings dated,28-04-2007 have to be complied with.

¶132

In the result, W.P.No.11973 of 2OO4 is allowed, with an observation that the petitioner shall be liabie to be levied surcharge henceforth, in the event of exceeding the limits; and W.P.No. I 1715 of 2007 is dismissed.

¶133

We are airaid we cannot subscribe to the vieu, taken by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge lell in error in holding that writ petitioner should not pay arly surcharge till the date of the judgment, rvhich is clearly contrarJr to the tariff order dated 23.O3.2OO4 .

¶134

29 . Writ petitioner had to demonstrate that it had an existing/vested right in not paying any additional levy in the form of surcharge on demand and consumption exceeding the contracted maximum demand of 5000 KVA which the writ petitioner failed to do. Letters issued by

¶135

¶136

officials of the Power Distribution Company would not come to the aid of the rvrit petitioner. If the surcharge is leviable post the date of^judgment, there can be no valid reason not to ler,y and pay the surcharge prior to the date of^judgment.

¶137

In so far the question as to whether the feeder line through which the writ petitioner was supplied additional electricity was an independent or dedicated feeder or a common feeder, learned Single Judge held that it was neither an independent feeder nor a dedicated feeder. Being a common feeder, the writ petitioner was bound to comply with the condition stipulated in the proceedings dated 28.O4.2OO7.

¶138

The writ petitions raised not only disputed questions of fact but also questions of highly technical nature. Unless the writ petitioner is prima facie able to show or demonstrate infringement of any of its legal rights, vested or otherwise, such type of grievance should ordinarily not be entertained in a proceeding under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of lndia, whereby and whereunder the writ

¶139

¶140

court exercises supervisory^{jurisdiction. Therefore, \ve are} of the unhesitant view that both^{the writ petitions ought to} have been dismissed by the learned Single^Judge. Consequently, that portion of the^{common judgmentand} order dated 26.07.2OO7 holding that surcharge^{levied upto} the date of^judgment would not be sustained^and that^writ petitioner would only be liable to pay the surcharge levied only after the date of^judgment are hereby^{set asideand} quashed.

¶141

In the light of the above, W.A.No.959^{of 2007is} allowed and W.A.Nos.688 and 745 of 2OO7^{are dismissed.} However, there shall be no order as to cost.

¶142

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall

¶143

stand closed.

¶144

SD/-K.SAILESHI DEPUTY^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// SECTIOIN^OFFICER

¶145

To, I 2 ii:Effi :T,i,t*.:ift^{fu ffi iiHI[i?;;i'fl,{":i'?:T:;H::::]:ffi:} ? ?f;S'Sgi|.3iltl3unts^{oricer, operationcircle'Ranga Reddv (North)' Gun} Rock, Secunderabad - ti'J'B"JcLroPUCl 4( 3li333sl*l,ti:.'un&3sra'fi o Two CD^CoPies 7 One SPare^CoPY CHR , ss..{

HIGH COURT

DATED:2611012022

COMMON JUDGMENT

W.A.Nos.688, 745 and 959 of 2007

¶150

1 HE ST4 i4: \
: [3l'IrlJm
,', ,)//, ;l

¶151

Allowing the W.P.No.959 of 2007 and Dismissing the W.P.Nos.688 and 745 of 2007