WP/25135/2004 of R.K.Jain, Vs Transmission Corporation of A.P.Limited, on 31 December 2004

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 : 25135 of 2004

Between:

R.K.Jain, s/o Rikab Chand Jain, r/o H.No.6-1-748, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. (SC.No.B1-000012 in the name of A.S.Balaram)

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Transmission Corporation of A.P.Limited, (A.P.TRANSCO) rep., by its ChiefManaging Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Distribution-1, City The Central Distribution Co. of A.P.Ltd., Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 3 The Inspector of Police, A.P.T.S.Team-II, Vidyut Soudha, 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 pleased toissue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofmandamus declaring the provisional assessment notice in letter No. ADE /OP /Saifabad Sub-Div / DI / CI / CC / Hyd / F-Assess / D.No.883/04, dated 28-12-2004 ofthe 2nd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to Section 126 ofthe Electricity Act, 2003 and consequently set aside the same.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU

Counsel for the Respondents: MR.KANAKAMEDALA RAVINDRA KUMAR,Standing Counsel for AP TRANSCO

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

The petitioner is a domestic consumer of electricity. Inspection was conducted on14-12-2004 by the Vigilance staff of the respondents. On noticing certainirregularities, the second respondent issued a letter dated 28-12-2004 alleging thatthe petitioner resorted to pilferage of power assessed to Rs.93,119/- and that heshall have to pay a sum of Rs.46,559/- in case, he wants continuance of powersupply. The petitioner challenges the same.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for therespondents.

Petitioner is served with an order of provisional assessment. This is to be followedby a show cause notice. Thereafter, an order of final assessment has to be passedby the competent authority, duly taking into account the explanation that may besubmitted by the petitioner, and holding such enquiry as is necessary. The actualliability of a consumer to pay any amount on the allegations of pilferage would ariseonly when an order of final assessment is passed. The disconnection of powersupply on the ground that the amount indicated in the order of provisionalassessment is not paid, was held to be illegal by a Division Bench of this Court in itsorder in W.A.Nos.452 and 477 of 2004. It was held that the order of provisionalassessment is almost in the form of a show cause notice, and no liability can befastened on a consumer, on the basis of such proceedings.

Following the same, the writ petition is allowed directing that the respondents shallcontinue the power supply to the petitioner without insisting on payment of anyamount shown in the order of provisional assessment. The power supply shall becontinued, as long as the petitioner pays the actual consumption charges. Thepetitioner would be liable to pay any amount towards the value of pilfered energy,only after an order of final assessment is passed. There shall be no order as tocosts.

_____________________

(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)

Note: furnish c.c. tomorrow.

B/oKvni/sh

To

1 The Chief Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of A.P.Limited,(A.P.TRANSCO) , Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Distribution-1, City, The Central Distribution Co. of A.P.Ltd., Mint Compound, Hyderabad.

3 The Inspector of Police, A.P.T.S.Team-II, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad.

4 2 CD copies.