WP/25292/2004 of M.K.Mohinuddin (M.K.Moinuddin) Vs Asst. Divisional Engineer (Electricity) on 31 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 25292 of 2004

Between:

M.K.Mohinuddin (M.K.Moinuddin) S/o Mohd. Hasham R/o MCH. No.16-9-581/1 Old Malakpet, Hyderabad.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Asst. Divisional Engineer (Electricity) Central Power Distributioncompany of AP., Ltd., D-XXII C-VIII, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.

2 The Inspector of Police Vigilance and AP.TS. Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad.

3 The Superintending Engineer (Asst.)AP., Transco Vidyuth Soudha,Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action ofrespondent No.1 issuing the provisional assessment/Notice (Pilferage) ADE/D-XXII/C-VIII/D.No.1102 dt. 26/11/2004 in respect the of D.No.16-9581/1/2,estimated the value of pilferaged Rs. 36175-69 and pay Rs. 18087-84 (beinghalf the above estimated amount and plus reconnect the charges Rs. 50/- isillegal unjust, arbitrary unconstitutional and against the principles of naturaljustice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.T.GHORI

Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.M.VINOBHA DEVI

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

Petitioner was issued an order of provisional assessment dated26.11.2004 indicating that he has resorted to acts of pilferage and the loss isassessed at Rs.36,175/-. He was also directed to pay half of the amount incase he wants the continuation of power supply. The petitioner alleges that therespondents are taking steps to disconnect the power supply in case theamount indicated in the impugned order is not paid.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for therespondents.

As on today, the petitioner is served with only an order of provisionalassessment. It has to be followed by a show cause notice and thereafter anorder of final assessment. It is only when an order of final assessment ispassed that the petitioner can be held liable to pay the amount indicatedtherein. A consumer cannot be fastened with any liability on the strength of anorder of provisional assessment. A Division Bench of this Court has taken sucha view and the same has been followed by this Court in number of cases.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall notdisconnect the power supply to the petitioner on the ground that he did not paythe amount indicated in the provisional assessment order. It is, however,directed that the petitioner shall be liable to pay the regular consumptioncharges and his liability in relation to the acts of pilferage alleged against himwould depend on the findings recorded in the order of final assessment. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

---------------------

31.12.2004

ksld

To

1 The Asst. Divisional Engineer (Electricity) Central Power Distributioncompany of AP., Ltd., D-XXII C-VIII, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.company of AP., Ltd., D-XXII C-VIII, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.

2 The Inspector of Police Vigilance and AP.TS. Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad.

3 The Superintending Engineer (Asst.)AP., Transco Vidyuth Soudha,Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

4 Two C.D. Copies.