WP/26711/2006 of Chilamkur Suresh Babu, Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2006

ORDER:

The petitioner challenges the action of the respondent, namely, Southern PowerDistribution Company Limited (SPDPCL), in disconnecting power supply to ServiceConnection (SC) No.3805 (Category-I) of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

The petitioner is statedly residing in a portion of premises bearing house No.2-214-4belonging to Malipeddi Subba Rao. The petitioner’s portion is having electricitysupply with SC No.3805 (domestic, category-I) whereas the portion of Subba Raoallegedly has SC No.1175 (commercial, category-II). The petitioner alleges that hehas nothing to do with SC No.1175. On 07.10.2006, Inspector of Vigilance checkedthe premises of Subba Rao and registered Crime No.4959 of 2006 under Section135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act, for brevity) pertaining to SC No.1175 on anallegation that there was theft of energy. The petitioner alleges that pursuant to suchinspection a notice was also issued to Subba Rao but no notice is issued to thepetitioner. Despite the same, the petitioner’s service connection was disconnected.Alleging that without prior notice disconnection of the power supply is illegal, thepresent writ petition is filed.

When the matter was called for preliminary hearing on 22.12.2006, learned Counselfor the petitioner relied on Section 56 of the Act and submits that any disconnectionfor any reason without prior notice is illegal. Opposing the writ petition learnedStanding Counsel for SPDPCL sought time for instructions. When the matter iscalled today, he submits that after inspection, the Assistant Divisional Engineer(Operation), Y.Palem (ADE), issued two provisional assessment orders in respect ofpremises pertaining to different categories of service connections and, therefore, thewrit petition is not maintainable.

Learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court a Xerox copy of theprovisional assessment order/notice issued by the ADE in respect of SC No.3805(category–I) and Xerox copy of such notice in respect of SC No.1175 (category–II). Aperusal of these two would show that the ADE inspected both the premises on07.10.2006. The premises with SC No.3805 was inspected at 11.45 hours and other premises at 12 Noon on 07.12.2006 when it was found that the incoming andoutgoing phase terminals from the meter are joined together to control theconsumption of the meter. From this, he provisionally concluded that the consumeris indulging in theft of energy and provisionally calculated the amount in respect ofSC No.1175 at Rs.98,952/- and in respect of SC No.3805 at Rs.3,577/-.

In view of the evidence produced before this Court, this Court holds that the writpetition is filed on factual foundation, which is not correct. Therefore, anyinterference would amount to putting premium on an alleged illegality and allegedtheft of energy. Therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to raise all objectionsbefore the final assessment authority or Special Court by filing appropriateapplication, as and when the case is referred for determining the civil liability. If thepetitioner seeks to avail power supply, it is also open to him to pay amount as perdemand and avail benefit under Section 126(4) of the Act.

In the result, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Final AssessmentAuthority/Special Court and file appropriate application, the writ petition isdismissed. No costs.

_____________

December 29, 2006. (V.V.S.RAO,J)

YS