Telangana High Court
WP/27400/2005 of Dr.B.Chandra Sekhar, Vs The A.P.Transco-E.P.D.C.L. on 23 December 2005
MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.27400 of 2005 Dated:23.12.2005 Between: Dr.B.Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Dr.B.Shanmukheswara Rao (Late), D.No.11-5-11, Gopala Krishna Street, Ramaraopet, Kakinada (P.O.), East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND The A.P.Transco-E.P.D.C.L. Rep by its the
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
WRIT PETITION No.27400 of 2005
Dated:23.12.2005
Between:
Dr.B.Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Dr.B.Shanmukheswara Rao(Late), D.No.11-5-11, Gopala Krishna Street, Ramaraopet,Kakinada (P.O.), East Godavari District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
The A.P.Transco-E.P.D.C.L. Rep by its the Chairman cumManaging Director, Corporate Office at Dabagardens,Visakhapatnam (P.O), and District, and another......RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
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:
WRIT PETITION No.27400 of 2005
This writ petition is filed to declare the impugned provisional assessmentnotice, dated 17.12.2005, issued by the 2[nd] respondent, as illegal, arbitrary andin violation of the provision of Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 (for short ‘theAct’).
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is havingelectricity service connection No.22248 under low tension category-I at GopalaKrishna Street of Kakinada Town and is running a hospital in the name andstyle of M/s. Ravi Chandra Hospital. While so, the 2nd respondent made aninspection on 12.12.2005 and sent the meter for testing on the allegation thatthe energy was pilfered. Basing on the inspection report, the 2[nd] respondentissued the impugned provisional assessment notice, dated 17.12.2005,estimating the value of energy pilfered by the petitioner at Rs.1,57,196=50 anddisconnected the power supply on the same day. The petitioner was calledupon to submit his representation, within one month from the date of receipt ofthe notice, as to why the disconnection shall not be continued. For restorationof the power supply, the petitioner was directed to pay half of the said amount.Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the representation made bythe petitioner to the 1[st] respondent, the service connection was restored on18.12.2005 and he has not filed any explanation.
It has to be seen that after passing the provisional assessment orderunder Section 126 (2) of the Act, the consumer shall be given opportunity to filehis objections against the provisional assessment notice and it is for theconsumer to agree the provisional assessment order or to dispute the same byfiling objections and if any objections are filed under Section 126 (4) of the Act,the final assessment order has to be passed in accordance with Section 126(5) and (6) of the Act. Until the final assessment order is passed under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 126 of the Act, the service connection cannot bedisconnected.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinionthat basing on the provisional assessment notice the respondents cannotdisconnect the power supply under Section 126 of the Act and the impugnedprovisional assessment notice, dated 17.12.2005, is directed to be treated asshow cause notice and the petitioner shall file his objections within one monthfrom today and till the final orders are passed, the service connection of the petitioner shall not be disconnected for non-payment of the provisionalassessment amount on pilferage charges.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Note: Issue CC in three days
B/o.
ES
______________________
23.12.2005