WP/15788/2006 of smt. Heera Bai Sharma W/o Late Gopal Sharma Vs The Superintendent Engineer, Assessments, on 27 December 2007

ORDER:

The petitioner claims to have purchased a building from oneR.V.Subba Rao through a registered sale deed. However, she didnot make any application for transfer of the service connection in hername and the same continued in the name of the previous owner. While so, on 7.7.2005, the Assistant Divisional Engineer inspectedthe service connection and having found pilferage energy, hasissued a provisional assessment notice vide Lr.No.1093 dated8.7.2005 and directed the petitioner to pay half of the assessmentamount for continuing the power supply. It is stated that thepetitioner has paid half of the demanded amount. Thereafter, thepetitioner preferred an appeal against the said assessment orderbefore the 1[st] respondent appellate authority. It is stated that withoutissuing any notice to her, the appellate authority has passed theimpugned proceedings dated 15.4.2006 confirming the orderspassed by the 3[rd] respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitionerhas filed a set aside petition for setting aside the ex parte orders andto give opportunity to prove her case. While the said petition waspending, the power supply was disconnected. Questioning the saidaction, the present writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the building inwhich the service connection in question is installed was purchasedby the petitioner and, therefore, she is entitled to defend her caseand is also entitled for a right of hearing. Even without looking intothe contentions raised by the petitioner in her petition, the appellateauthority issued notice to Sri R.V.Subba Rao, the previous owner and passed the impugnedorder.

Though the learned standing counsel for the respondentCorporation tried to support the order of the appellate authority, aperusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that the petitionerfiled the appeal stating that she purchased the property from theoriginal owner and that she wants to defend her case, butunfortunately the appellate authority instead of issuing notice to thepetitioner has issued the notice to the previous owner of the propertyand passed the impugned order. Therefore, it is clear that thepetitioner was not given any opportunity to defend herself. In thecircumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is liableto be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The appellateauthority is now directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner andpass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to her.

Since it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitionerand also admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit thatthe petitioner has already deposited half of the demanded amountand the power supply has been restored, the respondents aredirected not to disconnect the service connection till the disposal ofthe appeal.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

N.V.RAMANA,JDATE: 27.12.2007

msv