SARWOTTAM ISPAT (P) LIMITED, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE, Vs. TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the manufacturing of steel ingots by following the procedure of induction furnace. The petitioner is availing power supply from the respondents to their factory at Industrial Estate, Medchal. The petitioner was initially availing power supply to a tune of Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) of 3600 KVA. It appears, due to slump in the market, the petitioner removed one furnace with effect from 15-4-2003 and, therefore, approached the fourth respondent for reduction/deration of C.M.D. from 3600 KVA to 1900 KVA under Condition No. 26.8 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy applicable to the case. The petitioner's application was considered and the petitioner was allowed deration by order of the fourth respondent dated 21-5-2003. This is not denied in the writ petition.

(2.) As per Condition No. 28.2, the respondents are required to undertake general review for the purpose of additional consumption deposit (ACD) by the consumers. Undertaking such review, the fourth respondent, by a letter dated 29-5-2003 reckoned the C.M.D. of the petitioner from April, 2002 to March, 2003 and arrived at the average consumption charges equivalent to two months at Rs. 1,37,46,400.00. As the petitioner has already deposited Rs.24,74,917.00 as consumption deposit (CD), by the said letter, the fourth respondent requested the petitioner to arrange the payment of balance of Rs.1,12,71,500.00 towards additional consumption deposit within a period of thirty days on or before 28-6-2003. The petitioner was also informed that non-compliance with the demand notice entails in disconnection of power supply without any further notice. The petitioner approached the Director (Commercial) of the second respondent contending that as his request for deration was accepted, the review for the purpose of consumption deposit should be based on the C.M.D. as on the date of such review. By letter dated 22-7-2003, the Director, third respondent herein, informed the petitioner that the Central Power Distribution Company Limited (CPDCL) is not agreeable for recovery of additional consumption deposit for the year 2003-04 on the basis of revised derated C.M.D. of 1900 KVA. The petitioner, therefore, assailed the action of the respondents in demanding A.C.D. in a sum of Rs.1,12,71,500.00.

(3.) At the admission stage itself, the fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the representation was undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply and the A.C.D. for the year 2003-04 was revised on the consumption of power for the year 2002-03 ignoring the deration from 3600 KVA to 1900 KVA, which was affected after 31-3-2003. It is also stated that the deration will be taken into consideration for the forthcoming financial year 2004-05. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner made a request to permit to pay the A.C.D. in nine (9) interest free equated monthly instalments as per Memo dated 21-7-2003.