M/s Dakshina India Arya Vysya v. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity

India Arya Vysya Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Dharma paripalana Samstha, Tirumala, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in treating the electricity service connections to their building in Tirumala hill under Category-II (Non-domestic Commercial) as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner organization has constructed a building in Tirumala Hills and it is stated that a choultry is being run in the said building by obtaining service connections by entering into an agreement as per the terms and conditions framed under the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) and was consuming electrical energy. As per the terms and conditions of supply, though initially an agreement was entered into under Category-II (non- domestic commercial) but however on representation of the petitioner, the category was re-classified as Category-VII with effect from

01.06.1991. The said re-classification, to Category-VII is evident from the letter dated 28th September, 1995 issued by the Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Tirupati to the Manager of the petitioner’s organization. But however, when there was an objection from the Department in the year 1995, again the category was changed from Category-VII to Category-II and the Assistant Accounts Officer addressed the petitioner demanding an amount of Rs.94, 925,40.ps. on account of the differential consumption charges for the period for which the petitioner was availing Category- VII service. It is the case of the petitioner that when there was a change from Category-II to Category-VII, a separate agreement was entered into as per the terms and conditions of supply and the consumption charges were collected from it as per the terms and conditions of such agreement. It is the further case of the petitioner that merely because there is an objection from the Auditor, without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any prior notice, respondents, cannot change the category on their own and in any event, they cannot collect any amount from the petitioner for the period for which the petitioner was availing service connection under Category-VII by entering into a valid agreement.

Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the building owned by the petitioner, i.e., M/s. Dakshina India Arya Vysya Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Dharma paripalana Samstha, Tirumala in which the service Nos.785 and 854 are existing is a very three-storeyed building consisting of 94 rooms letting out for rent at Rs.100/- per room per day. It is also further stated that the said building cannot be categorized as charitable institution because it is serving only one community of Arya Vysyas and as much as they are also collecting Rs.100/- per room per day; hence, petitioner has to be categorized only on the non-domestic commercial but not under Category-VII. In the year 1991, it is stated that bill for Rs.94,925.40.ps. was issued for differential amount from March, 1993 to April, 1995 on account of audit objection by the Accounts Officer, Internal Audit, Tirupati.

Reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner disputing the averments in the counter-affidavit with regard to the rents being collected by the petitioner. It is stated that they are collecting rent only for the purpose of maintenance, but not on commercial lines. The supply through service connections is extended to the petitioner by entering into an agreement as per the terms and conditions of supply framed under the Act. Though initially agreement was entered into categorizing the service connection under Category-II ie., non-domestic commercial but however subsequently in the year 1991, category was changed and was reclassified as Category-VII with effect from 01.06.1991. It is also stated, to that effect, agreement was also entered into and supply was continued from 01.06.1991 onwards under Category-VII. If for any reason, the category is to be changed on the ground that the petitioner building is not being used only for charitable purposes, the respondents ought to have conducted enquiry by issuing notice to the petitioners before changing the category. When the agreements entered into were intact, merely because there was an audit objection with regard to the categorization, respondents ought not to have changed the category on their own without even notifying to the petitioner. In any event, as much as from