1. All these cases are being disposed of by this common order in view of the common point of law involved in these cases. Though W.P.No.16354 of 2009 was not listed for hearing, but at the request of the learned counsel for petitioner, it is clubbed with W.P.No.15410 of 2009 and is being disposed of by this common order along with other cases. In these cases, the petitioners challenge the levy of energy charges on excess energy for the months where their maximum demand exceeded the contracted demand.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

3. All the petitioners are HT consumers. They had separate agreements with the licensees. The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short, Commission) approved the Schedule of Retail Tariff Rates and Terms and Conditions in respect of the four distribution companies for the year 2009-10 (for short, Retail Tariff Rates). Condition (6) of General Conditions of H.T. Supply of the said Tariff Order reads as follows.

“(6) Additional charges for maximum demand in excess of the contracted demand:

If in any month the recorded maximum demand (RMD) of the consumer exceeds his contracted demand with Licensee, the consumer will pay the following charges on excess demand and energy.

Excess RMD over CMD Demand Charges on Excess Demand Energy Charge on Excess Energy

100 to 120% 2 times of normal charge Normal

Above 120% and up to 200% 2 times of normal charge 1.5 times of normal charge

More than 200% 2 times of normal charge 2 times of normal charge

Excess demand and energy shall be computed as follows: Excess Demand = (RMD-CMD) IF RMD is more than CMD with Licensee.

Excess Energy = (Excess Demand/RMD) X Recorded Energy.”

4. The petitioners exceeded their contracted demand in respect of various months as indicated in the bills and based on the recorded maximum demand, the respondents issued bills, which are as follows.

Sl.No. Name of the petitioner Writ Petition Number Bill issued for the month Bill amount

1. Sri Dhanalakshmi Cotton & Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. 15410/2009 April and May, 2009 Rs.10,47,872/-

2. Osmania University 14097/2009 April to June, 2009 Rs.29,90,315.65

3. M/s. Agarwal Foundaries 14961/2009 April to June, 2009 Rs.18,92,774/-

4. M/s. Agarwal Foundaries 16354/2009 April to June, 2009 Rs.18,92,774/-

5. M/s. Shrinath Rotopack Pvt. Ltd. 19001/2009 August, 2009 Rs.1,19,454.74

6. M/s. Hind Oil Industries 19018/2009 August, 2009 Rs.93,009.60

7. M/s. Blend Colours Pvt. Limited 14195/2009 April to June, 2009 Rs.1,63,536/-

8. M/s/ Hind Oil Industries 14198/2009 April to June, 2009 Rs.2,33,344/-

9. M/s/ Hind Oil Industries 16054/2009 July, 2009 Rs.87,068.28

5. In view of the Tariff Order, the respondents wanted to collect energy charges on excess energy. During the course of hearing, though it was brought to the notice of this Court that a similar issue was earlier decided by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.15149 of 1988 relating to the period prior to 2000, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents submitted that the said decision is not applicable after the formation of Electricity Regulatory Commission and the cases have to be decided afresh.

6. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted as follows.

(i) While fixing the Retail Tariff Rates as Annexure-D to Tariff Order, the Commission has not followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Business Regulations framed thereunder.

(ii) There is no rationale in clubbing contracted maximum demand and energy which are independent and though this point was earlier decided by this Court in W.P.No.15149 of 1988, it was brought into force again in violation of the orders of this Court in the said Writ Petition.

(iii) The respondents threatened to disconnect the power supply to the petitioners without issuing any notice and without following the provisions of the Electricity Reforms Act and the said action is illegal.

7. The