ORDER:

Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in disconnecting the power supply on 21- 06-2013 by issuing the anti dated notice of demand Lr.No.ADE/OP/JDML/F.No.8/D.No.3421 Dated 30-03-2013 as back billing to the petitioner service connection No.0105 00058 as arbitrary, illegal and against the provision Sec. 56(2) of the electricity act and also condition 3.4 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply and consequently direct the respondents to restore the power supply to the petitioner Service connection No.0105 00058 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of printing press and has an electricity service connection No.0105 00058 at Jeedimetla, Hyderabad and had been paying electricity bills regularly. However, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, Jeedimetla disconnected the power supply to the petitioner’s property, without prior notice and issued an anti-dated notice vide Lr.No.ADE/OP/JDML/F.No.8/D.No.3421 dated 30.03.2013 demanding an amount of Rs.3,86,319/- for the period from 01.04.2011 to 28.03.2013, due to a change in the petitioner’s service connection category from I to IIIA without following the procedure prescribed under the Electricity Act, 2003 and General Terms and Conditions of Supply. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. This Court passed interim orders in favour of the petitioner on 25.06.2013 in W.P.M.P.No.21798 of 2013 directing the respondents to restore the power supply to the petitioner Service connection No.0105 00058 operation circle Jeedimetla, Hyderabad and in pursuance to the said interim orders, the subject power supply of the petitioner had been restored.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that against the impugned proceedings dated 30.03.2013 issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Jeedimetla to the petitioner herein, the petitioner may be directed to make an appropriate representation to the DE/Operation Kukatpally/SE/Operation RR North (Designated Officer for appeal), and upon the petitioner making appropriate representation, the grievance of the petitioner as put forth in the representation would be considered by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as indicated in the impugned notice dated 30.03.2013. However, the petitioner instead of availing the said opportunity, approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner would make an appropriate representation to the DE/Operation Kukatpally/SE/Operation RR North (Designated Officer for appeal) within a reasonable period and the same may be directed to be considered by the respondents in accordance to law by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing on behalf of the respondents, the w rit petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation putting forth all the pleas as put forth in the present w rit petition and also the legal pleas w hich are available to the petitioner in support of the petitioner’s case to the DE/ Operation Kukatpally/ SE/ Operation RR North (Designated Officer for appeal) as indicated in the impugned proceedings dated 30.03.2013 vide Lr.No.ADE/ OP/ JDML/ F.No.8/ D.No.3421 of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, J