WP/1/2000 of P.DANIEL RAMAPURAM KURNOOL Vs A.P.TRANSCO HYDAND3 ORS on 30 December 2004

ORDER:

The petitioner, who is running a small scale Unit of Stone Polishing at a remotevillage in Kurnool District, files this writ petition, inter alia, seeking to assail theimpugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 20-10-1998 dismissingappeal and confirming the orders of the third respondent dated 26-06-1998 in regardto the assessment made on the irregularities found during the inspection.

The case of the petitioner is that on 22-11-1997 the fourth respondent has made thefirst inspection where no irregularities were found. Further immediately after onemonth on 23-12-1997 during inspection, it was alleged that there is a pilferage ofenergy by meddling with the mechanism of the meter committed by the petitionerand the present proceedings are initiated after following the procedure. Initially, theassessment was made provisionally at Rs.13,81,589/-, which at the stage of finalassessment, was reduced to Rs.3,30,275/-. Ultimately on appeal, it was furtherreduced to Rs.2,82,476/-. It is contended that even in regard to such assessment,which has been allowed at the stage of appeal on a quite higher side, there wouldnot have been such an extent of consumption to warrant imposition to levy amounts.Hence, the writ petition.

The contest in the petitioner’s claim, it is submitted that having regard to the natureof allegations as found against the petitioner, it cannot be said that there is nopilferage and the assessment made is also quite on proper basis and reasonable and the petitioner has sufficiently got relief at every level and therefore does not callfor any interference.

Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material, it is seenthat there is no dispute in regard to the inspection made on 22-11-1997 and nothingwas found however it is only in the inspection made by the fourth respondent on22.11.1997 the imputation is being made against the petitioner on the followingincriminating points:

“1) When the motors are working, the energy meter disc is found rotating in back ward direction.

2. When the energy meter is tested with a 4 KW heater the energy meterdisc is found rotated in back ward direction in two phasesand not rotated in third phase.disc is found rotated in back ward direction in two phasesand not rotated in third phase.

3. The wooden meter box C.Ts. compartment seal wire of the seal bit isfound cut and the seal is hanging. The latches and theirfixing screws of the meter box are also found loose.found cut and the seal is hanging. The latches and theirfixing screws of the meter box are also found loose.

4. The meter box door is opened and observed that the insulation tapesprovided at the peeled portions of primary ‘R’ and ‘Y’phases cables are removed and the potential leads are justhooked to the alluminium leads of the cables instead ofbinding.provided at the peeled portions of primary ‘R’ and ‘Y’phases cables are removed and the potential leads are justhooked to the alluminium leads of the cables instead ofbinding.

5. On detailed examination it is found that the ‘R’ phase potential isconnected at ‘Y’ phase terminal in the meter terminal blockand vice-versa.connected at ‘Y’ phase terminal in the meter terminal blockand vice-versa.

6. The potential is not observed at ‘B’ phase terminal in the terminalblock.”block.”

Challenging the said allegations, the petitioner sought to explain by sayingthat there could not be such serious acts committed by him when everything wasfound just one month prior to. However, this explanation was not accepted by boththe authorities and ultimately held that the petitioner is responsible for such allegedacts. In view of such concurrent finding arrived at by both the authorities, this Courtcannot go into the same in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

However, coming to the quantum of assessment arrived at by both theauthorities, it is seen that there is a drastic reduction at every level and ultimately anamount of Rs.13,81,589/- is brought down to Rs.2,82,476/-. It is submitted by thelearned counsel for the petitioner that half of the said amount has already beendeposited. Be that as it may, having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase, it cannot be said that the assessment as made finally is on proper basis andreasonable. Further, having regard to the fact that it seems that the inspection madeas long as on 22.12.1997, no purpose would be served going into the question ofassessment afresh. In the circumstances, the final assessment as made against thepetitioner at Rs.2,82,476/- is reduced to 25%.

The writ petition is partly allowed reducing the amount of Rs.2,82,476/- at25%, which comes to Rs.2,11,857/-. No costs.

__________________

B. PRAKASH RAO, J

30[th] December 2004.Chvn/Glv.

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.

Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this the Thursday, thethirtieth day of Decembertwo thousand and four.

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.

// TRUE COPY//

To

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.Transco, Vidyut Soudha,Khairatabad, Hyderabad.Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Chief Engineer, Electricity, A.P.Transco, Cuddapah, CuddapahDistrict.District.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Electricity, Assessment Circle, Cuddapah.

4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, A.P. Transco, CCO, Banaganapalle,Kurnool District.Kurnool District.

5. Two C.D. copies.