Telangana High Court
WP/27704/2005 of Sri J.Srinivas Reddy, Vs Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh on 28 December 2005
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos. 27704 of 2005 & 27706 of 2005 Between: Sri J.Srinivas Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
WRIT PETITION Nos. 27704 of 2005 & 27706 of 2005
Between:
Sri J.Srinivas Reddy
AND
Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., (AP TRANSCO) having its office at Singareni Bhavan,Hyderabad, represented by its Managing Director and 2 others
.....RESPONDENTS
..... PETITIONER
COMMON ORDER:
As the petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same and filed both the writpetitions for a similar relief, they are being disposed of at the stage of admission bythis common order.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counselappearing for the respondents.
It is stated that the petitioner is having two service connections bearing Nos.4597Category LT2 and another No.7429 Category LT2 in respect of non-domestic andcommercial at Door No. 112, 113 S.S.Recreation Health Club, Saptagiri colony,Kukatpally. It is stated that an inspection was made on 02.12.2005 in respect of boththe service connections and observed that the petitioner is using supply directly byinter changing the outgoing terminals connected directly to the incoming servicewire, and hence it is alleged that the petitioner is indulging theft of energy, andfurther observed that a study of past record of consumption discloses that theconsumption being recorded by the meter is unduly low taking into account theconnected load, the number of hours of use of electricity by the petitioner, for whichthe petitioner has been availing the power for his related factors. Taking into accountall the factors into consideration, the 3[rd] respondent estimated the value of energypilferaged/misused by the petitioner in respect of Service No.4597 at Rs.354756.6and in respect of Service No.7429 at Rs.69183.22. It is stated that the respondentsdisconnected the power supply and demanded to pay half of estimated amount. It isstated that under threat of disconnection, the petitioner paid certain amounts. Thepetitioner questions the action of the respondents in disconnecting the serviceconnections based on the provisional assessment notice.
It is stated that after the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’) came intoforce, the respondents are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section126 of the Act. Under Section 126 of the Act, after an inspection is made an order of provisional assessment shall be served on the consumer, giving a reasonableopportunity to file objections under Section 123 of the Act, and it is for the consumereither to accept the provisional assessment or to file objections, and if he chooses tofile objections, then the objections have to be considered under Section 126 (5) and(6) of the Act. It is stated that as no opportunity was given, objections have not beenfiled by the petitioner.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisional orders aredirected to be treated as show cause notices calling for the objections, and thepetitioner is permitted to file objections, within a period of one week from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order and on filing such objections, the respondents mayconsider and dispose of the same, in accordance with Section 126 (5) and (6) of theAct. Till then, the service connections of the petitioner shall not be disconnected,subject to the petitioner continues to pay regular electricity charges.
With the above observations, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as tocosts.
Dated: 28.12.2005
Dsr
________________
V.ESWARAIAH,J