S.PARVATHA RAO, J. - (1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, calling forthe records of the 2nd respondent i.e., the Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Bhimavaram in his proceedings No. 1322 dated 29-4-1988 and quash the same etc.
(2.) The petitioner states that he is the owner of a Rice and Flour Mill at Bhimavaram and that he obtained electricity service connection No. 1717 from the 1 st respondent- Board for supply of electrical energy to the said mill on 17-6-1963 and entered into an agreement with the Board for that purpose. He states that he leased the mill for a period of six years to one Sivvala Satyanarayana effective from 1 -4-1976 and that even after the expiry of the lease period, the said Satyanarayana unauthorisedly continued in occupation of the mill for some more time. He further states that during the said period, the supply of energy to the mill was disconnected in the month of November, 1986 and subsequently the tenant Satyanarayana stopped running the mill and therefore there was no question of payment of any electrical charge or penalty thereafter. His compliant is that the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No. 1322 dated 29-4-1988, impugned in the present Writ Petition, issued a notice to him stating that by March, 1988 he had to pay a sum of Rs. 10,437-70 Ps. and that "a Bill dated Nil was served" on him. The petitioner alleges that no such bill was served on him. The impugned notice also intimated him that unless he paid the arrears of Rs. 10,43 7-70 Ps. Within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the meter etc., would be removed. The petitioner contends that the said notice dated 29-4-1988 is arbitrary and illegal and that he was not bound to pay any charges after the energy was disconnected and that there was no question of pay ing any minimum charges when the meter was disconnected and that therefore the question of payment of penalties etc., to a tune of Rs. 10,437-70 Ps. did not arise. He also complains that no details as to how the said figure of Rs. 10,437-70 Ps. was arrived at were furnished in the impugned notice. He states that no earlier notice detailing the arrears etc., was furnished to him or served on him at any time previously. He also finds fault with the statement in the impugned notice that a sum of Rs.249-90 Ps. was due under the bill dated 11/86 and that the same was not paid by him, and expresses that it was unimaginable as to how a sum of Rs. 10,437-70 Ps. was arrived at even though the service was disconnected and no energy was consumed thereafter.
(3.) The writ petition was presented on 9-5-1988 and it was admitted on 10-5-1988. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner also sought in W.P.M.P.No.9333 of 1988 directions to the respondents to issue re- connection to his service connection No.1717, pending disposal of the writ petition. On 10-5-1988, this Court granted interim direction for re-connection on condition that half of the arrears should be paid. It is not in dispute that on the petitioner paying half of the arrears, the supply of energy was restored pursuant to the interim directions of this Court.;