1. ' AHMED ALI SHAIKH, J.--- Through this constitution petition, the petitioner has prayed as under:---
(a) To declare that the acts of the respondents not providing the transformer and electric connection and demanding an amount of Rs.1,95,563 towards alleged "units showing consumed"
2. 16296 in advance are illegal, capricious in excesses of their lawful authority and powers, ultra vires and without jurisdiction;
(b) To direct the respondents jointly and severally to provide an install transfer of 50KV and electric connection at petitioner's Housing Scheme for which petitioner has deposited amount in the Account of respondent No.l.
(c) To grant any other relief deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; ' From the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has launched a Housing Scheme under the name and style of "Fatima Housing Scheme" at Deh Miano Taluka and District Hyderabad. The petitioner approached the respondents for installation of the transformer and electricity connection for the aforesaid Housing Scheme, following which the respondent No.1 issued Demand Note of Rs.3,97,058 and a bill of Rs.12,000 for the cost of material and installation of electricity connection. The petition deposited the said amount in the bank in the account of respondent No.
1. It is the case of petitioner that in spite of the deposit of the demanded amount, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 did not install the transfer and failed to provide the electricity connection to the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded that he moved applications on 17-2-2009 and 17-3-2009 by which he requested the respondent No.1 for installation of 50KV transformer and electricity connection but the respondent did not pay any heed. On one hand, the respondents failed to install transfer and electricity connection to the petitioner and on the other hand the respondent No.3 issued an advance bill of Rs.1,95,563 showing consumption of 16296 units with directions to the petitioner to pay the said bill in advance for three months and thereafter his request for installation of transformer and electricity connection would be considered. The petitioner further pleaded that vide letter No.M0G1/HESCO/D.B./3724 dated 26-3-2009 the respondent again required the petitioner to make payment of 16296 units in advance bill. The petitioner has called in question, the acts of the respondent by which they were avoiding to install the transformer and electricity connection to him besides demanding the payment of Rs.1,95,563 in advance inter alia, on the ground that actions of the respondents were absolutely illegal, arbitrary and without lawful authority.
3. ' The respondents filed their comments, in which they have taken the plea that the amount paid by the petitioner was not the bill of electricity consumption and the payment made by the petitioner was towards cost of the material, out of which Rs.15,000 was the security deposit. In their comments, the respondents further pleaded that it was the routine practice of the department to receive the payment of 16296 units amounting to Rs.195,563 in advance, which amount is adjustable towards consumption after installation of the electricity meters. The respondent denied the' averments made in the petition.
4. ' The factum of receipt of the payment through demand note dated 22-10-2009 for Rs.3,97,058 and Rs.15,000 was not denied by the respondents. When the respondent's counsel was asked as to provision of Electricity Act, under which advance bill of the payment is required to be paid, once the respondents have received the requisite amount for transformer, equipments and security deposit, he could not offer plausible explanation except that he contended that it was the practice of the respondents to issue such-bills in advance as security. We find that demand note Annexure "B" contains word "Security Deposit", which has already been deposited by the petitioner. Moreover, neither the transformer nor the electricity connection has been installed by the respondents and the advance bill issued by the respondent No.3 is not covered under any provision of law. The learned counsel for the respondents had failed to justify such advance bill. We accordingly hold that after receipt of the security deposit, demand by way of advance bill by the respondents was without lawful authority.
5. ' For the foregoing reasons, we have allowed the -petition as prayed with cost of Rs.10,000 to be paid by the officers who were guilty in issuance of such fictitious bill by our short order, dated 29- 10-2009.