Telangana High Court
WP/25304/2004 of Shaik Nazeer Vs The Superintending Engineer on 31 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25304 of 2004 Between: Shaik Nazeer S/o Shaik Muneeruddin H.No.5-5-182/1/ A ,
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.
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 REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 25304 of 2004
Between:
Shaik Nazeer S/o Shaik Muneeruddin
H.No.5-5-182/1/A, Darussalam, Hyderabad.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Superintending Engineer Operations, AP., Central Power Distribution Co. ltd., Mint Compound, Hyderabad.
2 The Divisional Engineer City -X, AP, Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
3 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, OP/DIST-XXX/City -IX
AP.Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Begum Bazar , 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 declaring the action of the respondents in issuingthe initial assessment notice Lr.No.ADE/OP/DIST-XXV/CITY-IX/F.No.167/D.No.912/2003-04, dt. 09/12/2004 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust andagainst the principles of natural justice and is in violation of Art. 14,19(1)(g) and21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents torestore the service connection of the petitioner.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PRATAP SINGH
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: SMT.M.VINOBHA DEVI
The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:
The power supply of the petitioner was disconnected, on the ground that hefailed to pay a sum of Rs.20,469/- representing half of the amount indicated inthe provisional assessment order dated 19.12.2004. The petitioner challengesthe action of the respondents.
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 shallrestore the power supply to the petitioner without insisting on payment of anyamount covered by the order of provisional assessment. 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
1 The Superintending Engineer Operations, AP., Central Power DistributionCo. ltd.,Co. ltd., Mint Compound, Hyderabad.
2 The Divisional Engineer City -X, AP, Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
3 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, OP/DIST-XXX/City -IX
AP.Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Begum Bazar , Hyderabad.
4 Two CD copies.