The court ruled that unsubstantiated unilateral reclassification of electricity tariff violates natural justice and must be based on reliable evidence.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

Aggrieved by the proceedings of the 3rd respondent - Divisional Engineer dated 31.07.2019, assessment notice dated 25.06.2019 issued by the 4^th respondent – Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation) and the power consumption bill dated 26.07.2019 issued by the 6^th respondent – Senior Accounts Officer in respect of HT Service Connection No. BKM130 (KMM 1030), insofar as the said proceedings relate to changing the tariff category from HT-II to HT-VII and levying back-billing charges as arrears with retrospective effect, petitioner is before this Court.

2. Petitioner M/s Prathima Infrastructure Limited - a company engaged in infrastructure and allied activities is stated to have made an Application in September, 2017 to respondents for supply of electricity at High Tension with a Contracted Maximum Demand of 750 KVA at Voddu Ramavaram Village, Mulakalapally Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The said Application was made specifically for the purpose of establishment of a site office and factory, clearly mentioning details of machinery proposed to be installed and operated, namely machinery required for production of concrete through a batching plant and fabrication of MS pipes. Petitioner asserts that the said activity constitutes manufacturing activity and does not fall under temporary or construction activity. Accordingly, the said Application was treated by respondents as falling under HT-II category, namely commercial and other services.

2.1. It is stated, after considering the Application and after due inspection of the site, sanction was accorded by the 2^nd respondent vide letter dated 28.10.2017. Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondent entered into an Agreement with petitioner on 30.04.2018 for supply of High Tension electricity under HT-II category, and a release order was also issued on the same date. From the date of release of supply, i.e. 30.04.2018, petitioner has been continuously and regularly paying power consumption bills raised by respondents strictly under HT-II category, without any default.

2.2. While the matter stood thus, the 4^th respondent issued assessment notice dated 25.06.2019 stating that inspection was conducted on 11.06.2019 in respect of HT Service Connection No. BKM130 of petitioner; it was proposed to reclassify petitioner's service from HT-II to HT-VII category and to levy back-billing charges amounting to Rs.34,61,400/-. Petitioner was directed to pay the amount within 15 days if agreeable, failing which they were required to submit objections to the 3rd respondent within 15 days.

2.3. Immediately thereafter, petitioner is stated to have submitted the detailed representation dated 02.07.2019, categorically explaining that power supplied was being utilized only for production of concrete through a batching plant and for fabrication of MS pipes, which are manufacturing activities and do not fall under temporary supply or construction activity. Petitioner specifically denied that power supply was being used for construction purposes and sought a personal hearing in the matter. Accordingly, a personal hearing was afforded to petitioner on 10.07.2019 and their representative attended the said hearing. During the course of personal hearing, Respondents 2 and 3 suggested that petitioner may approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum-I (CGRF), NPDCL, Warangal. Acting on the said suggestion, petitioner submitted representation/complaint dated 12.07.2019 before the CGRF-1 which was forwarded to the Superintending Engineer (Operation), TSNPDCL, Kothagudem vide lett