Telangana High Court
WP/25180/2004 of G. Srikar Rao, Vs The Suprentending Engineer, Operation Circle, North, 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 MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25180 of 2004 Between: G. Srikar Rao, S/o. G. Keshava Rao, (Late), R/o. 5-96/1,
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 MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 25180 of 2004
Between:
G. Srikar Rao, S/o. G. Keshava Rao, (Late), R/o. 5-96/1, Mosapet, Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONER
AND
The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, North, APCPDCL, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings dt. 3.12.2004 issued by therespondent bearing LR.No. SE/OP/north/Hyd/ AO(Rev)CRS/JAO/D.No.1633 asillegal and unjustified.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.C.FRANCIS
Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.M.VINOBHA DEVI
The Court made the following :
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.
ORDER:
The petitioner is a consumer of electricity. The Divisional Engineer/Operations, City-IV, Hyderabad, issued an order of final assessment dated 29.11.1999 holding thatthe petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.83,073/- towards back billing. Aggrieved bythe same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent herein. Throughletter dated 03.12.2004, the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.41,537/-,representing half of the amount covered by the order of final assessment as acondition precedent for entertaining the appeal. The petitioner challenges the same.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for therespondent.
The petitioner availed the remedy of appeal against the order of final assessment.The terms and conditions of supply provided for payment of half of the amountwhenever an appeal is preferred against the order of final assessment.
The petitioner states that he is in financial difficulty and the order of final assessmentitself was of the year 1999.
Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, the writ petition isdisposed of directing that in case, the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousands only) within three weeks from today, the respondentshall entertain the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law. No costs.
_________
To
1. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, North, APCPDCL, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.
2.2CD copies