Unilateral reclassification of electricity supply service and back billing without adherence to natural justice violates established principles, rendering such demands unlawful and unsustainable.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

Petitioner is stated to be a company which entered into an agreement dated 30.04.2018 with the respondent distribution licensee for supply of electricity under HT-II category, bearing HT Service Connection No. BKM-130, with a contracted maximum demand of 750 KVA at Oddu Ramavaram Village, Mulakalapally Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The said supply was granted for establishing and operating a site office and factory at the said location. From the date of release of service connection, petitioner has been regularly paying all monthly power consumption bills without any default.

1.1. While so, respondents, without observing the principles of natural justice, unilaterally changed the category of petitioner's service connection from HT-II to HT-VII and retrospectively assessed consumption charges from the very date of release of supply, i.e. 30.04.2018. By proceedings dated 25.06.2019 of the 4^th respondent and consequential power consumption bill dated 26.07.2019 issued by the 6th respondent, back billing demand of Rs.34,61,400/- was raised against petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, they filed Writ Petition No. 17803 of 2019 and this Court by order dated 20.08.2019, granted interim suspension of operation of the impugned back billing demand, subject to petitioner depositing one-third of the demanded amount within the stipulated time. Petitioner strictly complied with the said interim order and deposited Rs.15,87,772/- in two instalments on 11.09.2019, representing one-third of the demanded amount. The said interim order continues to be in force and Writ Petition is still pending adjudication.

1.2. It is further contended that subsequently, by letter dated 01.07.2020, respondents themselves revised the earlier back billing assessment of Rs.34,61,400/-and enhanced the same to Rs.47,63,316/-, stating that the earlier calculation was incorrect. Even in respect of the revised demand, petitioner complied with the interim directions of this Court and paid one- third of the revised amount, aggregating to Rs.15,87,772/-, by making payments of Rs. 11,53,800/- and Rs.4,33,972/-; thus, it is asserted that petitioner has scrupulously adhered to all interim directions of this Court. Except for the disputed back billing amounts, which are the subject matter of Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019, petitioner has paid all the regular monthly consumption charges raised by respondents without any arrears.

1.3 Petitioner further contends that as the project activities were nearing completion and the contracted maximum demand of 750 KVA was no longer required, it addressed representation dated 11.06.2022 to the 2^nd respondent seeking deration or reduction of contracted maximum demand from 750 KVA to 300 KVA in respect of HT Service Connection No. BKM- 130. They were not utilising even 50% of the sanctioned demand, as most of the project work had already been completed. Despite repeated representations addressed to Respondents 2 and 3, no favourable action was taken; instead, by letter dated 27.08.2020, the 2^nd respondent rejected the request for deration solely on the ground of pendency of arrears arising out of the disputed back billing, and directed petitioner to clear the said arrears. Petitioner asserts that it was compelled to pay excessive monthly charges of about Rs.2,25,000/- towards the unused surplus load of 450 KVA, even though the actual utilisation never exceeded 300 KVA. According to petitioner, denial of deration was not based on any valid or legal reason, but was a punitive measure adopted by respondent