THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 36837 of 2013

ORDER:

The petitioner-M/s. Ramky Infrastructure Ltd., was granted a permanent electricity supply for its infrastructure development project at Gachibowli, which was sanctioned by the respondent on 6.1.2006, and the electricity supply commenced on 9.5.2008. The petitioner contends it has consistently operated its office from the constructed premises and that the respondents billed it under the permanent "HT Category-II". This stable arrangement was abruptly disruptedwhen the respondent issued a letter dated 09.12.2011 retrospectively reclassifying the supply to "HT Category-II Temporary" and demanding a differential tariff charge of Rs. 31,77,653/-, effective back to 1.8.2010. The petitioner immediately raised an objection on 24.12.2011, asserting that it had never applied for a temporary connection and protesting the change made without prior notice. Following this objection, the petitioner states that the respondents initially dropped the demand and took no further action.

1.1 However, the respondent renewed its demand with a nearly identical notice on 21.11.2012. The situation escalated in January 2013, when respondent officials threatened to disconnect the power supply. Under this duress, and despite pointing out that the respondent's own bills indicated the "HT-II" category, the petitioner was forced to pay Rs. 5,00,000 under protest. This pattern of threatened disconnection and coercive payment repeated in June 2013 and October 2013, with the petitioner paying another Rs. 5,00,000 on each occasion, bringing the total protested payments to Rs. 15,00,000. On 28.10.2013, the petitioner formally requested that the proceedings be dropped and this amount be waived or adjusted. Despite these payments and protests, the respondent issued a bill on 26.11.2013, for a current charge of Rs. 6,64,244 and arrears of Rs. 16,74,610, totalling Rs. 23,38,855, and threatening disconnection by 25.12.2013. A final, high-handed attempt to disconnect the power was made on 13.12.2013, prompting the filing of this writ petition.

1.2 The petitioner's primary allegation is that the reclassification was executed without the mandatory prior notice required under Clause 3.4.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, rendering the action a violation of natural justice and the agreed terms of supply. The petitioner further alleges that the subsequent bills and the massive arrears demand are therefore illegal. The petitioner states that his electricity usage was never for a temporary purpose, to levy higher "Temporary" tariff and the back-billing for the differential amount from 1.8.2010. The petitioner asserts that his operations are permanent, and the respondent's actions are a unilateral and coercive attempt to extract higher payments under the threat of disconnection. 2. The respondents, represented by Superintending Engineer, contends that the petitioner remains liable for a balance of Rs. 15,88,826 out of the original Rs. 31,77,653 in disputed differential tariffs. It is stated that the petitionerspecifically applied for an HT supply on 5.9.2008, for construction purpose. The supply was released on that date with a Contracted Maximum Demand (CMD) of 750 KVA, later derated to 500 KVA effective 9.9.2010. The respondents contend that the purpose of the connection has always been for construction. The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC), following public hearings and wide publicity, approved a new Tariff Order for the financial year 2010-11, effective 1.8.2010. This order, detailed in Item Nos. 249 and 250, explicitly directed distribution companies (DISCOMs) to bill all construction companies under the "HT Category II Temporary" tariff. The respondents explain that there was an implementation lag, and thus, as a uniform procedure across APCPDCL, the petitioner continued to be billed under the lower "HT Category-II" tariff until October 2011. This practic