Allowed

M/s Madiha Metal Works v. Transmission Corporation of a.P.Limited

Telangana HC23 Sept 2014WP/5317/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench set aside an order passed by A.P.Transco dismissing a consumer representation for non-appearance, noting a violation of natural justice due to the petitioner's lack of notice to counsel and the relevant precedent in W.P.No.7586 of 1999.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Com respondent directed to afford reasonable hearing and pass appropriate orders within three months.

M/s Madiha Metal Works Vs Transmission… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5317 of 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶5

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of steel rods. The L.T Service Connection with a contracted load of 74 HP was obtained from the erstwhile APSEB (presently A.P.Transco). The service connection of the petitioner was regularly inspected by the officials of the APSEB and nothing adverse was found till December 1995. Another inspection was conducted on 14.01.1996. In pursuance thereof, the A.D.E.Operation, Gaganpahad, Ranga Reddy District, issued a provisional assessment notice dated 14.02.1996 alleging that during the course of inspection on 24.01.1996 it was noticed that the petitioner had connected a total load of 150.61 HP as against the contracted load of 75 HP. The said action constituted malpractice. The ADE assessed the value of the energy said to have been misused by the petitioner at Rs.96,535/- for a period of one year prior to the date of inspection and required the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.48,268/- to have continuity of power supply. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4054 of 1996 and in the said Writ Petition an interim direction was granted directing restoration of power supply to the petitioner on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.18,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the said amount. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued by the second respondent in letter No.

¶6

SEA/HYD/F.SBD-4-60/D.No.814/97 dated 20.09.1997. To the said show cause notice the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 22.11.1997. Along with the said explanation the petitioner also filed a petition requiring the second respondent to summon the Inspecting Officer and his Squad members who inspected the petitioner’s factory on 24.01.1996, since the second respondent wanted to rely on the ex parte statements/reports of the APSEB officials. The said explanation was submitted by the Counsel of the petitioner. The second respondent issued a notice on 28.11.2003 requiring the petitioner to attend for personal hearing on 10.12.2003. Since the said notice was not sent to the Counsel of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted before the second respondent on 10.12.2003 with regard to the non-service of notice on the Counsel. Without further adjourning the matter, the second respondent passed the impugned order stating as follows:

¶7

“The consumer given personal hearing on 10.12.2003 vide this office letter dated 28.11.2003 but the consumer neither attended nor represented even though the personal hearing was acknowledged by the consumer on 03.12.2003.”

¶8

Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition was filed.

¶9

3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents stating that an opportunity of personal hearing was given on 10.12.2003 vide letter dated 28.11.2003, which was served on the petitioner on 03.12.2003. But, the petitioner neither appeared nor anybody represented on behalf of the petitioner on 10.12.2003, as such the impugned order was passed finally

¶10

assessing the amount basing on the representation made by the petitioner and the records available. The ratio in W.P.No.7586 of 1999 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner as the said case relates to a pilferage, whereas the case of the petitioner is of malpractice.

¶11

4. The record reveals that pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.4054 of 1996 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent on 20.09.1997. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted the explanation on 22.11.1997 raising various contentions. Apart from those contentions, the petitioner specifically stated that since the entire allegations are based upon the version of the officials of the Board, the petitioner should be permitted to examine the staff, who inspected the petitioner’s premises on 24.01.1996, to adduce the evidence. The petitioner also filed a separate petition along with the explanation to that effect. The said explanation was filed on 22.11.1997 through the Counsel. After six years, the matter was taken up for consideration and a notice was issued on 28.11.2003 asking the petitioner to appear for hearing on 10.12.2003. The petitioner states that they appeared on 10.12.2003, but since the notice was not served on the Counsel for the petitioner, the Counsel did not appear. The counter affidavit states that none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 10.12.2003. The impugned order was passed stating that the consumer neither attended nor represented, even though personal hearing was acknowledged by the consumer on 03.12.2003. This is a gross violation of principles of natural justice, in view of the submission of the

¶12

detailed explanation along with a petition seeking summoning of the officials who inspected the premises on 24.01.1996. The petitioner relies on an order in W.P.No.7586 of 1999 dated 16.06.1999 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, and submits that the officials, who inspected the premises, should be called for cross examination by the persons who are affected by such inspection. Though the respondents state that the said case relates to pilferage and the present case relates to malpractice, the ratio is equally applicable to the instance case.

¶13

5. In view of the above, the impugned order No. SEA/HYD/F.No.SBD-460/SAHNo.9530/D.No.1818 dated 24.12.2003 is set aside, and the second respondent is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, consider the explanation submitted by them and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

6. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J)

¶16

23.09.2014

¶17

Note: Registry is directed to dispatch copy of this order after complying with the earlier order of this Court dated 03.06.2014.

¶18

B/o. vs

M/s Madiha Metal Works v. Transmission Corporation of a.P.Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Madiha Metal Works v. Transmission Corporation of a.P.Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Triveni, Vs Hyderabad Metropalitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

K. Laxmipathi Raju Vs Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority

Pedabaliyarasimhuni Srinivas Vs The Election Officer and Commissioner, Salur

Mudireddy Anji Reddy Vs T. Venkanna

Abdul Hai , Ashwaq Vs The Commissioner, Bhainsa Municipality, Adilabad

Gayatri Apartments Welfare Association, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its