Allowed

M/s Sri Surya Saw Mill, v. Eastern Power Distribution Co., of A.P. Ltd.

Telangana HC6 Feb 2006WP/1938/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a provisional assessment notice for alleged pilferage of electrical energy. The court held that under prior precedents, the Electricity Board lacked the power to disconnect supply based on a provisional assessment notice. Consequently, the disconnection was declared illegal and the notice was to be treated as a show cause notice.

What did the court decide?

The provisional assessment notice treated as a show cause notice; disconnection declared illegal; power supply directed to be restored forthwith.

M/s Sri Surya Saw Mill, Vs Eastern Power… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

MONDAY, THE 06^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2006

¶3

W.P.No. 1938 of 2006

¶4

Between:-

¶5

M/S. Sri Surya Saw Mill, Lakkavaram rep., by its Proprietor, Mangena Nagabhushanam, r/o Lakkavaram, Malikipuram Mandal, East Godavari district.

¶6

--Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

Eastern Power Distribution Co., of A.P. Ltd., rep., by its Managing Director, Rajahmndry, East Godavari district and two others.

¶9

--Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶11

W.P.No. 1938 of 2006

¶12

Oral order:-

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶14

The petitioner’s saw mill assails a provisional assessment notice dated 0701-2006 issued by the 3^rd respondent alleging pilferage of electrical energy by the petitioner and provisionally assessing the value of the energy pilferaged at

¶15

Rs.3,53,174-00, directing that supply to the petitioner would be disconnected and the petitioner may obtain restoration on payment of Rs.1,76,587-00, plus supervision charges and re-connection charges, as specified in the order impugned.

¶16

It is the admitted position that in view of the law declared by a learned Division Bench of this court in W.A.Nos. 452 and 477 of 2004 dated 11-03-2004, as followed by a learned single Judge in the judgment dated 02-11-2005 in W.P.No. 23468 of 2005, there is no power in the respondents to disconnect the power supply on the basis of a provisional assessment notice issued under Section 126 of the A.P. Electricity Act, 2003.

¶17

The provisional assessment notice, impugned herein, shall therefore be treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner is at liberty to submit his explanation to the show cause notice within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The disconnection of the petitioner’s power supply effected by the respondents is declared illegal and the respondents are directed to restore the energy supply to the petitioner forthwith. The determination of the petitioner’s entitlement to continued supply or payment of the value of the energy, if any pilfered, shall be dependent on the final orders to be passed after considering the objections submitted by the petitioner to the provisional assessment notice impugned herein.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of, as above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶20

Date: 06-02-2006 Pvks/*

¶21

Nb:- Furnish c.c. day after tomorrow. i.e., 08-02-2006. pvks.*

¶22

GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶23

Date: 06-02-2006

¶24

Pvks/*

M/s Sri Surya Saw Mill, v. Eastern Power Distribution Co., of A.P. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sri Surya Saw Mill, v. Eastern Power Distribution Co., of A.P. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Krishnaiah, Vs The Senior Commandant, Cisf Unit, Bdl

C.J.Vokappa, Vs The Commandant, Cisf Unit Bhel (R)

K. Ramaiah, Vs The Superintendent Engineer (Operations)

R. Sivaiah, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Om Prakash Bhageriya, Vs The Secretary, Home Department, Government of

P.Bhaskara Reddy, Vs The Chairman, a.P.Cooperative Tribunal