Remanded

M/s. Coromandel Cements Ltd. Rep. by its Managing v. The Ap Transco, rep. by Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC2 Dec 2014WP/8594/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges an electricity tariff assessment order determining loss due to alleged pilferage. The court allowed the petition, finding the assessment order mechanically passed and factually flawed regarding production unit calculations. The matter was remitted to the Tariff Authority for fresh determination.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 12.04.2004 was set aside and the matter remitted to the Tariff Authority to pass orders afresh within six months.

M/s. Coromandel Cements Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Vs… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.8594 of 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

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

¶5

The petitioner is a public limited company in Hyderabad. It is engaged in the manufacture of cement and has its factory at Ramapuram Village, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District. The petitioner is availing the electricity supply under HT category I for its factory since 1986. It has got CMD of 3000 KVA initially and subsequently it was rated down to 1250 KVA. While so, the petitioner’s premises was inspected by the Divisional Engineer/DPE-II on 21.07.1994 and it was noticed that everything was normal and also found that the meter was functioning satisfactorily. However, it was noticed that some of the seal wires were loose and seals were coming out easily without cutting the seal wire. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to furnish the information regarding the production details and the units of energy generated by the captive generation etc., and the same were accordingly furnished on 27.07.1994. While so, a provisional assessment order was issued on 28.07.1994 by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Kodad, stating that on the date of inspection on 21.07.1994, certain incriminating features were noticed and it was alleged that the petitioner was indulging in pilferage of electricity and provisionally estimated the loss at Rs.51,64,095/- and the petitioner was called upon to pay 50% of the same for continuation of supply of electricity. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs.25,82,048/- in order to obtain continuous supply of electricity. Thereafter, a show cause for the pilfered energy of an amount of Rs.1,71,87,480/- was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit the explanation. The petitioner submitted explanation on 01.11.1994. In the mean while, the petitioner was prosecuted in Criminal Court under Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act in C.C.No.207 of

¶6

1994 on the file of the learned First Class Judicial Magistrate, Kodad, and it ended in acquittal on 16.07.1996. However, a final assessment order was passed on 31.12.1996 determining the loss sustained at Rs.1,45,08,705/- by taking the unsubstantiated figures. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Engineer, APSEB. When the petitioner was insisted for payment of 50% of the amount of the final assessment amount, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2906 of 1997 and the same was disposed of on 18.02.1997 at the stage of admission directing the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs.30.00 lakhs in addition to the amounts already paid pursuant to the provisional assessment notice pending adjudication of the appeal. However, the said appeal was disposed of on 13.02.1998 confirming the assessment made by the third respondent. The petitioner filed W.P.No.6782 of 1998 and while admitting the Writ Petition, the petitioner was directed to pay the balance of 50% of the amount assessed by the third respondent as confirmed by the Chief Engineer by order dated 13.02.1998. The Writ Petition was later disposed of on 04.10.2002 directing the third respondent to consider the matter afresh without relying on the evidence of both the parties and to pass appropriate orders basing on the material available on record after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a letter on 09.01.2003 as the time granted by this Court was expiring by 05.02.2003. After receipt of the said letter, the third respondent called upon the petitioner to attend his office on 03.03.2003 for hearing. A personal hearing was conducted on 23.07.2003 and 02.08.2003. The third respondent mechanically passed an order alleging pilferage of energy at a value of Rs.1,11,05,558/- and the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The appeal was rejected by partly confirming the order of assessment and the pilfered value was estimated at Rs.33,96,010/- by order dated 12.04.2004. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition was filed.

¶7

The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Nalgonda, filed a counter affidavit stating that on inspection on 21.07.1994, the following incriminating points were noticed:

¶8

“a) Meter Box seal bearing No.A221052 seal wire is coming out from bit from one side without cutting the seal wire.

¶9

b) Test terminal block seal No.079797 and meter cover seal bit is coming out from one side without cutting the wire whereas the meter terminal cover M.D.knob meter board seal are in tact.”

¶10

Later on the various proceedings culminating in passing of the final order by the second respondent on 12.04.2004 were reiterated. It is stated that the duty of the Divisional Engineer, Operation, is to take readings of HT service with above 1000 KVA CMD and he records incriminating points only in case where they are clearly visible to the normal vision, a separate wing called DPE wing is there exclusively to detect pilferage cases and officials have inspected the premises on 21.07.1994, but not on 09.04.1994, as alleged. At the time of inspection on 08.07.1994, it was confined to the external observations and the meter was not opened for detailed inspection.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the order, the second respondent has not taken the relevant details furnished by the petitioner into consideration and mechanically passed the order. He drew the attention of this Court towards calculation of the estimated units by taking the units of energy for production of cement of one ton at 140. He submits that there is no basis for such calculation. The data furnished by the National Council for Cement and Building Materials, a Central Government Organization, indicates that the maximum units for one ton of cement is 111.5 to 132.1. He also further submits that though at the relevant time the consumer generated 9,97,700 units, only 8,63,063 was taken into consideration and there is no basis for the same. He submits that in view of the factual mistakes, the order of the second respondent is unsustainable. He further submits that these points were raised during the course of arguments and though

¶12

the second respondent has noted the same, the second respondent has not applied his mind to those contentions and erred in passing an incorrect order.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents is unable to substantiate the basis for taking 140 units for production of one ton of cement and also taking 8,63,063 towards self generating units.

¶14

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the second respondent dated 12.04.2004 and the matter is remitted to the second respondent for passing orders afresh taking into consideration the various contentions already raised in the grounds of appeal dated 11.09.2003 and the supplementary appeal dated 02.01.2004 and also by giving an opportunity of personal hearing. The second respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount already paid by the petitioner shall abide by the orders to be passed by the second respondent. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 02.12.2014 vs

M/s. Coromandel Cements Ltd. Rep. by its Managing v. The Ap Transco, rep. by Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Coromandel Cements Ltd. Rep. by its Managing v. The Ap Transco, rep. by Chairman and Managing Director

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

K.A.P. Thrimurthulu Vs The Director of Town and Country Planning

Smt. M.Govindamma, Vs The Commissioner

Mr.Mirza Dilwar baig Vs The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad,Ranga Reddy

Sri Ganga Mahal Theatre, Gudivada, Krishna District, Vs The Joint Collector and Licensing Authority

Srinivasula Radha Krishna Murthy Vs The Asst,Divisional Engineer, Operations , Central

M/s. Surya Pvc Cable Industries, Rep by Prop Mandapu Vs A.P. State Financial Corporation rep by its Chairman