Telangana High Court
WP/9542/2002 of Devadula Sanjeeva Rao, Vs Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited,(A.P.TRANSCO), on 27 December 2007
DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU Writ Petition No.9542 of 2002 27.12.2007 Between Devadula Sanjeeva Rao …Petitioner And Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited, (A.P.TRANSCO) rep.by its Chief Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE
THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU
Writ Petition No.9542 of 2002
27.12.2007
Between
Devadula Sanjeeva Rao
…Petitioner
And
Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited, (A.P.TRANSCO) rep.by its Chief Managing Director,Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and others.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULUWrit Petition No.9542 of 2002
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:
This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking todeclare that the notice, dated 31.12.2001, issued by thesecond respondent is illegal, arbitrary and against theprinciples of natural justice.
The petitioner contended that he is running a ricemill on lease and there is an electricity connection givenby the respondents. The Officials of the respondentsinspected the meter and found that the wires wereinterchanged to prevent recording of meter reading. Onthe basis of the report, provisional assessment order hasbeen passed by the second respondent. Challenging thesame, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition onthe ground that there is no tampering of meter and also onthe ground that the matter was considered by the criminalCourt when he was prosecuted and the criminal Courtgave him clean acquittal. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to the quashed.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondentsrepresented that subsequent to filing of the writ petition,final assessment order was passed on 17.06.2006 andtherefore the provisional assessment order has no affectand there is no need to pass any order in the present writpetition. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the finalassessment order, he is at liberty to challenge it beforeappropriate forum by raising all the objections.
In the light of passing of final assessment order bythe competent authority, no cause of action survives in thewrit petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all theobjections before the authority concerned, including thesubmission regarding jurisdiction of the respondents inpassing the final assessment order under Section 49(c) ofthe Indian Electricity Act, 2003, if he is aggrieved by thefinal assessment order. No costs.
It is represented by the petitioner’s counsel that thecopy of the final assessment order has not been servedon the petitioner. The respondents are therefore directedto serve a copy of the final assessment order on thepetitioner.
VGB
_______________27.12.2007