JUDGMENT
S. Parvatha Rao, J.
1. The petitioner questions the demand for payment of Rs. 47.338-25 Ps. accumulated on Account No. F4-16106 for the period upto 12/87 remaining uncleared. That demand was made in Letter No. AAO/GRC/ACCT.I/ D.No. 510/88 dated 15-6-1988 addressed to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent.
2. The Proprietrix of the petitioner-concern states that she was doing business of manufacturing bread and that electrical energy was being supplied to her concern under Category -III under service connection bearing No.V6-27233. She states that Account No. F4-16106 had nothing to do with her service connection and that it related to a private limited company by name Preethi Nutrition Foods Pvt. Limited of which her father was a Director. She also states that according to her understanding that company was closed in the year 1987 itself. She states mat the respondents had no authority whatsoever to collect the dues of that company from her because her service connection was not in any way connected with that company and the said dues did not relate to her service connection. Apprehending disconnection of her service connection for refusing to pay the said dues, she approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.
3. The Writ Petition was admitted on 5-7-1988 and on the same day, in W.P.M.P.No. 12395 of 1988 this Court gave interim directions to the respondents not to disconnect the electricity supply to the petitioner-concern. The Proprietrix of the petitioner-concern states that she communicated orally the order to the respondents and in spite of that her concern’s service connection was disconnected and thereafter she approached this Court by way of W.P.M.P.N0.12675 of 1988 on 7-7-1988 by way of lunch motion. This Court, on the same day, directed the respondents to restore the service connection and 9upply of energy without calling upon the petitioner to bear any expenditure for such reconnection.
4. The learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board does not dispute that the two service connections were of different persons, one to the petitioner which was a proprietory concern and the other of a public limited company with which the Proprietrix of the petitioner-concern had nothing to do except that one of its Directors was her father. He seeks to defend the action of the respondents on the basis of the terms and conditions of supply of electrical energy by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Conditions of Supply) made in B.P.Ms. No. 690 dated 17-9-1975 with subsequent amendments as they stand on the relevant date. Condition 42.3 is a follows:-
“42.3. Where any consumer defaults in payment of
(a) charges for the supply of electricity and / or
(b) Minimum charges where supply is under disconnection and/or
(c) Unconnected minimum charges due in respect of a service for which supply is sanctioned and made ready but not yet availed, and/or
(d) Any other sums payable to the Board under the contract to supply or the tariff and terms and conditions of supply notified by the Board, Under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, the Board, may, without prejudice to its other rights cause to be disconnected all or any of the other services of the consumer, though such services be distinct and are governed by separate agreements and though no default occurred in respect thereof.”
This condition clearly contemplates service connections belonging to the same consumer and under Clause (d) it provides that other service connections of a consumer may be disconnected if that consumer committed default in the payment of the dues of any one of his service connections. We fail to see how the respondents can rely on this condition because admittedly here the consumers were different. In the circumstances, therefore, we find that the action of the respondents in trying to recover the dues relating to the service connection of a private company from the petitioner-concern was high-handed and unwarranted and unsupported by any of the terms and conditions of service.
5. In the circumstances, we have to allow the Writ Petition and accordingly it is allowed with costs. We make it clear that no further directions are now necessary for restoring the service connection of the petitioner in view of the fact that it is stated before us that after the directions of this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 12675 of 1988, the supply of energy was already restored. Advocates fee Rs. 500/-.
