T. MEENA KUMARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to bill the petitioner under agricultural tariff and revise the bills and refund the excess amounts collected from the petitioner.

( 2 ) IT is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner is availing supply of electricity from the A. P. State Electricity Board and he is running a small agricultural nursery, namely, plants Land adjacent to House no. 6-3-1104, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, over an extent of nearly one acre. He obtained agricultural connection bearing S. C. No. A4-7321 under L. T. Category-V more than 12 years ago. But, however, in february, 1995, the bill has been issued in the name of one lady, resident of Pochamma basti, Begumpet with SC No. A1-7321 and it was brought to the notice of the Assistant engineer, ERO-1, APSEB, Greenlands, begumpet that prior to that bill, the bills were being issued by ERO-IV, Barkatpura in the category of agricultural connection. The said bill was withdrawn and another bill was issued on 22-3-1995. According to the petitioner in the said bill, the name of the consumer was shown as plant Nursery" and the Category- V - Agricultural had been converted into L. T. Category-II Commercial and the back billing was made and a demand was raised for Rs. 58, 311. 72 ps. treating the petitioner s Nursery as commercial with effect from October, 1993.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not called upon, by issuance of a notice, to explain his case before the issuance of the said bill and the conversion of the category from category-V-agricultural to Category-II-Commercial. The petitioner brought to the notice of the respondent-Board that the assumption of the Board that it is a commercial activity is not tenable as it is well settled that horticulture is one type of agricultural activity. But, it is stated that the petitioner s representation went in vain and the ERO I, Greenlands issued a computerized bill dated: 8-5-1995 wherein the consumer number was again changed and mentioned as 1-A4-7321 and that an amount of Rs. 64,221. 00 was required to be paid. On 24-5-1995, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 under protest. On 3-6-1995, the petitioner seems to have addressed a letter to the Assistant Divisional engineer, Distribution-XIV, APSEB, explaining the facts that it is an agricultural connection and the activity concerned is only agricultural and requesting him to convert his category into LT-V- Agricultural. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been informed that his case couldn t be considered on the ground that he is growing and selling plants and that it is a commercial activity. By the proceedings dated 21-9-1995, the Board has also negatived the petitioner s request and the petitioner was categorized as LT-Category-II from that of Category-V and he has been made to pay under category-II i. e. , Commercial.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the word agriculture has not been defined under the Act or under the tariff and hence, the petitioner s plant nursery wherein plants and flowers are grown is also an agricultural activity. It is further argued that the service connection is utilized for agricultural purposes and the respondents are in no way concerned with the product of the Nursery. The learned counsel relies upon a decision of the supreme Court in I. T. Commissioner v. Benoy kumar for the proposition that the agricultural operations include horticulture and in paragraph 16 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has held that the term "agriculture" in various dictionaries has been used both in the narrow sense of the cultivation of the field and the wider sense of comprising all activities in relation to the land including horticulture, forestry, breeding and rearing of livestock, dairying, butter and cheese-making, husbandry etc. It is further ob

Click Here to Read the rest of this document