S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner questions the decision of the A. P. State Electricity Board --respondent herein, communicated to it by the Member Secretary in Letter No. SE (Comm1.)/ III/281/88-1, dated 14-12-1988, on its representation made pursuant to the orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 800, of 1988 in the matter of higher voltages prescribed by the Board in B. P. Ms. No. 607, dated 21-7-1981.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief have to be stated first. The petitioner, a public limited company, set up a factory at Mancherial for manufacturing Portland Cement. It entered into an agreement with A. P. State Electricity Board in 1958 for supply of High Tension (H. T.) energy to that unit. Initially, the contracted demand was 5000 KVA at 3. 3 KV pressure. Subsequently, at the request of the petitioner, the contracted demand was increased to 7,000 KVA. Thereafter, on 20-1-1981, the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent-Board requesting for a further additional 1600 KVA; by the letter dated 7-3-1981, the Board agreed to supply the additional demand, but, on condition that the petitioner changes over and agrees to receive energy at 132 KV instead of 3. 3 KV at which it was receiving supply. However, thereafter in B. P. Ms. No. 607 dated 21-7-1981, the Board required the Existing H. T. consumers to receive energy at higher voltages depending on the quantum of contracted demand and also required such of those consumers who continued to receive at lower voltages to pay additional surcharge as indicated in the following table:

( 3 ) THE Board gave to such of those consumers who were required to change over to higher voltage six months time to effect the change over and receive supply at the higher voltages applicable to them upto 28-2-1982 and also clarified that after the said period such of those consumers who faile to receive supply at the respective higher voltages would have to pay the additional charges as indicated above. Several H. T. consumers who were required to receive energy at higher voltages, including the petitioner, Questioned the action of the Board in that regard. The petitioner s Writ Petition No. 4202 of 1982 was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 26-10-1982 and the Board s Writ Appeal No. 1000 of 1982 questioning the order of the learned single Judge, was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 25-6-1987. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court; leave was granted and petitioner s Civil Appeal No. 800 of 1988, along with similar appeals preferred by other consumers, was dismissed by the Supreme Court by judgment dated 8-3-1988, AIR. 1988 SC 985, Hyderabad Engineering Industries Ltd. v. A. P. S. E. B. The Supreme Court upheld the power of the Board to require the H. T. consumers to receive energy at higher voltages and also the power to impose additional charge on the consumers continuing to receive energy at lower voltages. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Board as follows:"12. . . . . . The fact remains that lower the voltage higher the transmission loss, higher the voltage lower the transmission loss, and it is also not in dispute that these appellants arc high tension consumers consuming substantial power and, therefore, when power travels through transmission lines even for short distances it is not smaller quantities of power but heavy quantities of power are transmitted and in this view of the matter it could not be said that the policy decision taken by the Board to supply these high tension consumers power at high voltage so that transmission loss and transformation loss should be minimised could not be said to be any wrong decision or a decision not supported by scientific reasoning. "

( 4 ) AS regards the contention that it was the duty of the Board to establish and maintain sub-stations and main transmission lines and that it was not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document