Dismissed

Mohd. Faheem Siddiqui v. The Divisional Engineer (Electricity)

Telangana HC19 Jun 2009WP/13238/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging assessment orders for theft of electrical energy. Upheld the final assessment authority's findings on pilfered value and afforded the petitioner three months' time to pay the balance after interim stay deposit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted three months time to pay the balance amount pending final assessment after already depositing Rs.25,000/-.

Mohd. Faheem Siddiqui Vs The Divisional Engineer… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO : 13238 of 2004

¶6

Between :

¶7

Mohd. Faheem Siddiqui S/o Late Mohd.OsmanSiddiqui H.No.12-2-790/130, Ayodhya Nagar Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Divisional Engineer (Electricity) Assessment -1 APCPDCL., AP. State Housing corporation Building 4th Floor, Street No.17, Urdu Hall Lane, Himayat nagar, Hyderabad-29

¶11

2 The Superintending Engineer(Electricity) Assessments /APCPDCL AP. State Housing Corporation Building Urdu Hall Lane, H.No.3-6-184, 54th Floor, Street, No.17 Himayatnagar Hyderabad-29 .....RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records and quash the order No.DEA/I/Hyd/DAT 24723 D.No.1315 dt. 10/05/2004 passed by the 1st Respondent and the order in Appeal SAP 2913 of June 2004 passed by the2nd respondent confirming the order the 1st respondent.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.A.RAVI SHANKAR

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO)

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

This writ petition is filed, challenging the validity of the order, dated 10.05.2004, passed in Order No.DEA/1/Hyd/DAT 24723 D.No.1315, by the Divisional Engineer (Electricity), Assessment-1, Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited, as confirmed by the Superintending Engineer (Electricity), by his order, dated 30^th June 2004, passed in Letter No.SEA/HYD/SAP.No.2913/ D.No.1634/2004.

¶18

2. The petitioner is a businessman running business in electronics in the name of “Moon Watches and Electronics” in the mulgi bearing D.No.10-1128 at Masab Tank, Hyderabad. He has obtained the electrical power connection for commercial purpose, from the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited, vide Service Connection bearing No.A3-2484. The service connection of the petitioner was inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations), on 27.11.2000. On the ground that the service wire was directly connected to the load through D.P. Switch, and the petitioner/consumer was directly tapping supply from the pole, and thus, involved in theft of energy, a case was registered against him. Immediately thereafter, the cost of loss of energy was

¶19

assessed by issuing a provisional assessment order. It is stated that as against the provisional assessment order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition, and this Court, by orders dated 28.07.2004, granted interim stay, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/-, pending final assessment, and the petitioner has deposited the said amount of Rs.25,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner had participated in the inquiry in the final assessment proceedings. Respondents have confirmed the value of pilfered electrical energy at Rs.1,06,190.40 ps. In addition to the same, the petitioner was asked to pay Rs.150/towards supervision charges and Rs.50/towards reconnection charges, by the final assessing authority i.e. the Divisional Engineer, (Assessments). As against the said order, the petitioner/consumer had carried the matter by way of appeal as per the Terms and Conditions of Supply, and the appellate authority, while confirming the order of the primary authority, has reduced the value of pilfered energy from Rs.1,06,190.40 to Rs.58,660/-.

¶20

3. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that his service connection was disconnected on 25.11.2000 for non-payment of consumption arrears of Rs.5,198/-, and he has paid the said amount on 28.11.2004, and therefore, it is his case that as on 27.11.2000, he was not having the power supply and the case registered for theft of energy is a false one. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was not using Neon lamps, but the connected load is

¶21

wrongly taken for the purpose of assessing the value of pilfered energy.

¶22

4. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents by the Divisional Engineer. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that when the service connection of the petitioner was inspected on 27.11.2000, it was found that the service wire was directly connected to the load through D.P. Switch. Thus, the consumer has directly tapped the energy from the pole. It is stated that in the final assessment proceedings while considering the contentions of the petitioner/ consumer, the value of pilfered energy was assessed at Rs.1,06,190.40 ps., and on appeal, the same was revised by the appellate authority to Rs.58,660/-. In the counter affidavit, it is categorically stated that when the service connection of petitioner was inspected, it was found that he was using Neon lamps with a connected load of 1 KW for focus of the signboard. It is also found that petitioner was using Air Conditioner to his shop.

¶23

5. In this writ petition, the allegation of the petitioner is that the supply was already disconnected on 25.11.2000 for not paying the consumption charges, and afterwards, he has paid the arrears only on 28.11.2004, as such, it is pleaded that the theft case registered against him on 27.11.2000 is a false one. There is no basis for the said contention of the petitioner to assail the validity of the impugned orders. As there was disconnection, it appears

¶24

that the petitioner has indulged in theft of energy by directly tapping power from the pole by bypassing the Metre. When the inspection was carried out by the Assistant Engineer, he has prepared the inspection notes, and has made the provisional assessment of the value of pilfered energy, and when such provisional assessment was confirmed by the Divisional Engineer, there is no basis to disbelieve the same. Even with regard to use of Neon lamps and the Air Conditioner, it is categorically stated in the counter affidavit that during the inspection, it was found that the petitioner was using Neon lamps with a connected load of 1 KW for focus on the signboard and it is also stated that Air Conditioner was installed in the commercial premises. While assessing the pilfered energy, the respondents have taken the total connected load as 1 KW, by taking into account the Neon lamps and the Air Conditioner used by the petitioner. In the absence of any rebuttal by way of reply affidavit, disputing the averments made in the counter, there is no reason to disbelieve the counter affidavit. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the final order of assessment, passed by the primary authority, as confirmed by the 1^st appellate authority in the order, dated 30^th June 2004.

¶25

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶26

7. As it is stated that pending the final assessment proceedings, the petitioner has already deposited an

¶27

amount of Rs.25,000/-, in that view of the matter, petitioner is granted three months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for paying the balance amount.

¶28

_____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶29

19^th June 2009 ajr

Mohd. Faheem Siddiqui v. The Divisional Engineer (Electricity)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Faheem Siddiqui v. The Divisional Engineer (Electricity)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Gopal Vs The Asst. Divisional Engineer

Akula Srinivasa, Vs The Central Power Distribution company of a.P.Ltd.

M/s.Shark Sea Foods (P)Ltd., Vs The Suptd.Engineer (Op)

Raju Sudhakar Rao, Vs The Superintendent Engineer, Operations Apspdcl

M/s. A.L. Sudershan and Company, Vs The Superintending Engineer, Electrical

K.Madhusudhan REddy, Vs The Union of India