MAHESHWARI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a proprietary concern of one Sri Gopi Kishan Baheti. He questions order No. SE/ O/H/DPE/A2-3074/1015-81 dated 21-1-1981 of the 3rd respondent i.e., Superintending Engineer (Operation), Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, City Circle at Hyderabad as confirmed by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent i.e., Chief Engineer/ Electricity, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Western Zone at Hyderabad dated 30-7-1988, assessing the value of the energy 'misused' by the alleged malpractice of the petitioner at Rs. 2,264.80 ps.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was availing supply of electrical energy from the 1st respondent i.e., Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board ('the Board' for short) under account number A2-3074 under Category III. The load sanctioned originally was 14 H.P. By application dated 1/4-12-1974, the petitioner applied for additional load of 14 H.P. i.e., for a total load of 28 H.P. under the said connection. By Letter No. JE/SC/SRN; Addl/C 16(1475) dated 12-2-1975, the Junior Engineer (Electrical), Zone-1 required the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 15I.00 towards estimated service line cost and a sum of Rs. 850.00 on account of cash security within 15 days. The printed form used for the said letter also required the petitioner to get the wiring done in accordance with Rule 49 of the Indian Electricity Rules,! 937 and to produce certificate while remitting the amounts. The petitioner paid Rs. 850.00 and Rs. I51.00 as evidenced by receipts B. No. 16039 dated 27-2-1975 and No. 93213 dated 1-3-1975 respectively. The first receipt was given by the Deputy Chief Accountant (Revenue) and the latter receipt was given by the Junior Engineer/Supervisor. The said original receipts were filed by the petitioner in the present writ petition, as well as the original letter dated 12-2-1975 referred to above. In view of the original documents placed before us, these facts arc irrefutable.

(3.) In his affidavit in support of the writ petition, the petitioner states that his premises was. inspected by the respondents, and that the addition load was released to his service. He also states that the differences of minimum charges on the additional load of 14 H.P. were being collected from him from 1975 onwards. Quite interestingly, he also states that he is "prepared" to pay the differences in minimum charges wherever necessary.....". Thus, according to the petitioner he was enjoying the additional load of 14 H.P. i.e., in all the connected load of 28 H.P., eversince 1975 after he paid the amounts as required of him by the letter of the Junior Engineer (Electrical), dated 12-2-1975.