Dismissed

Smt. Patchigolla Kusma Kumari v. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Dec 2020CRP/5562/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition challenging a Special Court order under Section 154(5) of Electricity Act, 2003, the Court held that civil liability must be determined by the competent court via a filed application before refunding excess deposits. The petition was dismissed, confirming the lower court order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given liberty to redress grievance regarding liability determination in accordance with law if Board files application.

Smt. Patchigolla Kusma Kumari Vs Eastern Power… — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5562 of 2010

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed challenging the Orders, dated 25-08-2010 passed in S.R.No.2129 of 2009 in un-numbered E.M.C.No. of 2009 on the file of the Court of Special Judge under Electricity Actcum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru.

¶4

The petitioner/ consumer filed the present petition against the provisional assessment notice dated 07.07.2006 issued by the 2^nd respondent under Sub-Section (5) of Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶5

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is having service connection No.12057 (Category-I). The 4^th respondent/Assistant Divisional Engineer, D.P.E.-2, Eluru, Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, Tadepalligudem inspected the house of the petitioner on 03.07.2006 and obtained the signature of the petitioner on a printed proforma to send the meter to M.R.T. Lab, Eluru for testing.

¶6

The 2^nd respondent/Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Town, Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, Tadepalligudem issued a provisional assessment notice, dated 07.07.2006 to the petitioner alleging pilferage of energy and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of

¶7

¶8

Rs.70,660/-. A criminal complaint is also registered for committing theft of energy vide Cr.No.1018 of 2006 of Vigilance, APTS P.S., Eluru.

¶9

The petitioner paid 50% of the assessed amount and obtained electricity re-connection. The petitioner filed a W.P.No.24430 of 2007 before this Court and this Court directed the respondents to continue power supply to the petitioner on payment of charges regularly. According to the petitioner, if the order of the Trial Court is allowed to stand, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and hardship and requested to grant necessary reliefs.

¶10

The Trial Court at the stage of registration raised an objection as to the maintainability of this application in view of the sub-Section (5) of Section 154 of Electricity Act.

¶11

The petitioner is having service connection No.12057 (Category-I). During the course of investigation, the inspecting staff found that the petitioner committed pilferage of energy and hence, registered a crime against the petitioner in Cr.No.1018 of 2006 of Vigilance, APTS P.S., Eluru and issued provisional notice demanding to pay an amount of Rs.70,660/-. Thereafter, the petitioner started litigation on payment of 50% of the amount as required for preferring the petition before the Special Court.

¶12

The only objection raised by the Special Court is that how the civil liability can be determined against the supplier on the application filed by the consumer in the Court. Sub-

¶13

¶14

Section (5) of Section 154 of Electricity Act would clearly show that the Special Court shall determine the civil liability against the consumer or a person but not against the supplier, in terms of money for theft of energy it shall come to less than amount deposited by the consumer or the person, the excess amount so deposited by the consumer or the person, to the Board or Licensee of the concerned person, as the case may be shall be refunded by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order of the Special Court.

¶15

It appears from the material on record that only a provisional notice was issued and liability of the consumer was not determined by competent Court on the application if any filed by the Board in terms of Sub-Section (5) of Section 154 of Electricity Act. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to redress his claim in accordance with law if civil liability is determined by the competent Special Court in terms of the provisions of Electricity Act, in any application filed by Board.

¶16

In view of the above, having found no ground, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to redress his grievance, if any in accordance with law.

¶17

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the Orders dated 25-08-2010 passed in S.R.No.2129 of 2009 in un-numbered E.M.C.No. of 2009 on the file of the Court of Special Judge under Electricity Act-

¶18

¶19

cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru

¶20

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in

¶21

this case shall stand closed.

¶22

________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶23

Date: 15-12-2020 KLPD

¶24

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶26

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5562 OF 2010

¶27

Dated: 15-12-2020 KLPD

Smt. Patchigolla Kusma Kumari v. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Patchigolla Kusma Kumari v. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seemala Viswanadhamand 3 Others Vs Seemala Satyanarayana

Bommareddy Sanjeeva Reddy at Jeeva Vs Arepally Venkata Naga Ramesh

Marupilla Appa Rao Vs Pothina Nageswara Rao

Srinivasa Floor Mill, W.G. Dist. Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., and 4 Others

M Abdul Rahaman Vs Kantamani Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana and 22 Others

Neelapu Jamuna Vs Bobbili Nagamani