Telangana High Court
WP/2954/1999 of AHMED BASHA STGONE CRUSHER GUNDURUPALLI Vs A.P.TRANS.COOP.SOMAJIGUDA HYDAND3 OTHERS on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 2954 of 1999 Between: M/s. Ahmed Basha Stone Crusher Gundurupalli village, Rapur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAOWRIT PETITION NO : 2954 of 1999
Between:
M/s. Ahmed Basha Stone Crusher
Gundurupalli village, Rapur Mandal,
Nellore district, rep.by its Managing Partner S.K. Basha, S/o. Kalesha, aged about 55 years, Residing at D.No.24/2180/8, Ramnagar, Darga Hills, Nellore.
AND
1. A.P. Transmission Corporation,
rep.by its Chairman-cum-Managing DirectorVidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONER
2. The Chief Engineer/Electricity/APSEBNellore Zone, Vidyuth Bhavan, Nellore.
3. The Superintending Engineer(APSEB)Assessments, Cuddapah.
4. Assistant Divisional Engineer(Operations)
APSEB, Gudur, Nellore District.
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 to issue writof certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records relating to theproceedings in Lr.No.CEE.NZ.NLR.Comml.A.133/97/D.No.78/98 dated 5-1-99 of the 2[nd]respondent confirming the order of 2[nd]respondent passed inProc.No.SE/A/CDP/FAO/D.GDR/PF.4/96-97. D.No.180/97, dated 26-6-97 and quash thesame and pass such other or further orders as the Hon’ble Court feels deem fit and properin the facts and circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.O.MANOHER REDDYCounsel for the Respondents : SMT.M.VINOBHA DEVI(Standingcounsel for A.P. Transco)
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.
ORAL ORDER:
Heard both sides.
The petitioner herein, who is running a stone crusher unit, files this writpetition, inter alia, assailing the impugned orders dated 5.1.1999 passed by the 2[nd]respondent herein, in appeal confirming the orders of the 3[rd] respondent dated26.6.1997, making the assessment in regard to certain irregularities found during theinspection.
The case of the petitioner is that inspection was made on 27.11.1996 andthereafter, after following due procedure, final assessment order was made to thetune of Rs.4,10,865/-. In appeal also, the same was confirmed. It is his further casethat having regard to various difficulties, to which the petitioner was already put todue to stoppage of the crusher and the unit being in a bad state of affairs for the past2 years, such an amount could not have been assessed, which on face of it, is onhigher side.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents repelled thecontentions on the ground that the entire assessment is perfectly valid.
On considering the submissions and also on perusal of the material availableon record, it is seen that in the said inspection, the allegations as made against thepetitioners are to the following effect.
“All the meter cover seals are found flattened i.e. zigzagness of theseal bits are found flattened and the impression on the seal bits is not clear.Sealing wire of the seal bits is removed and re-inserted again by tamperingthe seal bits.”
On the face of it, the allegations constitute very serious offences. Noconsumer is entitled to meddle with the meter in the manner in which it is now beingfound. Having regard to the same, there is absolutely no explanation forthcoming onbehalf of the petitioner and in view of the findings of fact arrived at holding that thepetitioner is responsible for all such irregularities, this court cannot go into the samein exercise of powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. However, by takinginto consideration the fact that the petitioner-unit was in a bad state of affairs andhad several difficulties including stoppage of crusher etc, it would suffice in theinterests of justice to reduce the total amount as assessed from Rs.4,11,065/- toRs.3,08,299/-.
The writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.
30.12.2004
CVM
That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.
Conclusion
Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on thisThursday the Thirtieth day of Two thousand and four.
REGISTRAR
To
To
1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director ,A.P. Transmission Corporation,Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
2. The Chief Engineer/Electricity/APSEBNellore Zone, Vidyuth Bhavan, Nellore.Nellore Zone, Vidyuth Bhavan, Nellore.
3. The Superintending Engineer(APSEB)Assessments, Cuddapah.Assessments, Cuddapah.
4. Assistant Divisional Engineer(Operations)
APSEB, Gudur, Nellore District.
5. Two CCs to Standing Counsel for APSEB, High Court Premises,High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT)High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT)
6. Two CD copies.