Allowed

M/s. Vijayalakshmi Youth Association Rice Mill, v. The Eastern Distribution Company of A.P. Limited

Telangana HC18 Mar 2014WP/7968/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a rice mill owner, challenged an electricity department order assessing pilferage and was granted a refund of an interim deposit in a prior writ petition. After the department failed to refund the amount, the High Court allowed this petition and directed the department to repay the sum along with interest.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondents to refund Rs. 50,000 along with interest @ 18% p.a. within four weeks of receipt of this order.

M/s. Vijayalakshmi Youth Association Rice Mill, Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO W.P.NO.7968 OF 2009

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

¶4

02. The Petitioner is the owner of a small non-trading rice mill. An amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid as margin money and Rs.80,000/was advanced by the State Government as loan which has to be repaid in instalments over a period of three(3) years. The mill was started on 26-12-1999. There is a L.T. power supply connection bearing S.C.No.381 (Category. III) with connected load of 15 HP from the 1^st Respondent. The bill for power consumption of the mill ranges from Rs.600/- to Rs.2000/- during the period of un-season and season respectively. On 05-08-2000 the transformer from which the Petitioner’s service is fed was burnt. On 06-08-2000 the Petitioner lodged a complaint with the 4^th Respondent with a request to replace the burnt transformer. The replaced transformer was also burnt on 0209-2000. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 25-10-2000 the officials of the 1^st Respondent visited the mill and took his signature on blank papers. On 29-10-2000 the Petitioner was served with a notice dated 27-10-2000 issued by the 4^th Respondent after disconnecting the power supply. The 4^th Respondent alleged that during the inspection held on 25-10-2000, it was found that there were no meter box seals and when the meter was tested it was found that the meter disc was rotating in two phases out of three phases and was not rotating in one phase. Based on the said allegation, the 4^th Respondent assessed the value of energy alleged to have been pilfered at Rs.2,06,299/- and directed the Petitioner to pay 50% of the same for restoration of power

¶5

supply. Challenging the same, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.2234 of 2001 and the same was disposed of on 19-02-2001 with a direction to the 1^st Respondent to restore the power supply on condition of Petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.20,000/- with the 1^st Respondent. The amount was accordingly deposited and the power supply was restored. The 2^nd Respondent passed the final assessment proceedings on 20-02-2002 in purported exercise of powers conferred on him under Condition No.39.9 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply. The said order was challenged in W.P.No.13660 of 2002. The said writ petition was admitted and an interim order was passed directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- in two(2) instalments. The Petitioner deposited the said amount and ultimately the writ petition was allowed holding that the 2^nd Respondent has no power and jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and further holding that the Tribunal constituted under the A.P. Amendment Act 35/2000 alone is competent to decide the civil liability in case of pilferage and the order of the 2^nd Respondent was set aside. After disposal of the said writ petition, the Petitioner submitted a representation dated 24-03-2008 seeking refund of the amount deposited pursuant to the interim order in the above writ petition along with interest at 24% p.a. When the said amount was not refunded, the present writ petition was filed.

¶6

03. A counter-affidavit is filed by the 4^th Respondent stating that the service connection was inspected on 25-10-2000 and certain incriminating points were observed at the time of inspection. A pilferage case was booked against the Petitioner. The allegation that the 4^th Respondent did not visit the Petitioner’s rice mill on 25-10-2000 was denied and it was stated that on that day he along with other officials visited the Petitioner’s rice mill. Based on the said inspection,

¶7

a provisional assessment notice was issued on 27-10-2000 and it was admitted that when a notice was issued by the Superintending Engineer, Assessments, Visakhapatnam on 03-01-2001, the same was challenged in W.P.No.2234 of 2001 and the Petitioner paid an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Thereafter, a final assessment notice was issued to the Petitioner on 20-02-2002, against which an appeal was preferred by the Petitioner to the Chief Engineer, Visakhapatnam, who directed the Petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount pending disposal of the appeal. Ultimately, it was stated that as per the direction of this court, the case was referred to District Tribunal, which is pending at I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

¶8

04. Admittedly W.P.No.13660 of 2002, challenging the order of the 2^nd Respondent dated 20-02-2012 was filed by the Petitioner and the same was allowed by this court on 18-07-2007. While passing the final orders, this court held that it is open for the Respondents to move appropriate application before the competent Tribunal or the Court for fixation of civil liability on account of the alleged pilferage of energy by the Petitioner. It was made clear that such an application can be moved within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the amount of Rs.20,000/- which was already paid by the Petitioner pursuant to the orders of this court dated 29-02-201 in W.P.No.2234 of 2001 shall be subject to the result of the adjudication by the competent special Tribunal or the Court. There is no observation with regard to the refund of the amount pursuant to the interim order passed in W.P.No.13660 of 2002.

¶9

05. Though the counter-affidavit states that pursuant to the directions of this court, a case was filed and is pending in the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, no number of the case is

¶10

furnished and the learned counsel for the Petitioner states that his client has not received any notice from any court sofar.

¶11

06. Since the said writ petition was allowed, it is in the fitness of things that the Respondents should have refunded the amount deposited by the Petitioner pursuant to the interim orders therein. When the Respondents did not refund the amount of Rs.50,000/deposited by the Petitioner pursuant to the orders in W.P.No.13660 of 2002, the present writ petition was filed.

¶12

In view of the undisputed facts of the case, this writ petition is allowed directing the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/deposited by the Petitioner within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of refund. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

_________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J

¶14

18-03-2014 TSNR

M/s. Vijayalakshmi Youth Association Rice Mill, v. The Eastern Distribution Company of A.P. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Vijayalakshmi Youth Association Rice Mill, v. The Eastern Distribution Company 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. G.Dhanalaxmi Vs The Government of A.P.

A. Vijaya Rama Rao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Basetti Amrutha Bai, Vs Municipal Council, Jagtial, District Karimnagar, rep.by its

Syed Ajeem, Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

Mrs.v.Sujata Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gatreddy Jagannadham Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal