Disposed

N.a.Panjawani v. Central Power Distribution Company of Ap. Limited

Telangana HC12 Apr 2023WP/33425/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a demand notice for alleged pilferage charges. The Court observed that since the final assessment had not been made and only a provisional assessment existed, the matter must be referred to the Special Court for adjudication before recovery can proceed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to refer matter to Special Court and not to proceed with recovery of balance amount without final assessment.

N.a.Panjawani Vs Central Power… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICEP. MADHAVIDEVI}

¶6

WRIT PETIT^ION NO:^{33425 OF 2010}

¶7

Between:

¶8

N.A. Paniawani, S/o Abbas^{Ali PanjawaniRl/o 6-3-668/12,Punjag.utta'} HvaeraUii Rep.by his GPA^{HolderMehdi Mohammed,Sio Nimji Bhai, Aged} about 71 Years

¶9

...PETrroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

Central^{Power Distribution Companyof AP. Limited, Rep byits Chairman}

¶12

Cu.-fr,tanaging Director,^{C/o Vidyuth Soudha,Khairatabad, Hyderabad'}

¶13

The^{Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations),APCPDCL',Vidyuth Soudha,} Khairatabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS

¶14

PetitionunderAnicle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith, the High court maybe} pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus^{or any other appropriatewrit, order or} orders direction or direclions^{declaringthe Letter of the 2nd respondentin,No.} ADE/ON/CC/C1 l)ltF-A4-27^{AOID.No.864dt. 26-11-2O1O as illegal, arbitraryand} unconstitutional and to issue^{a consequential directionto the 2nd respondentnot} to proceed to recover the^{balance amount of alleged pilferage charges without} making final assessment^{in accordance with section 126 of the lndiaElectricity} Act, 2003.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2010 WPMP.^{NOi 12400OF 2010}

¶16

Petition under section^{151 CPCprayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High court maybe pleased to} suspendtheletterNo.ADE/oN/cCtcltDllF-A4-2740lD.No.864dL.26-11-2010 issued by the 2nd respondent^{pending disposalof the WP}

¶17

Counsel fcir the Petitioner:^{SRI VEDULASRINIVAS}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI R. VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TSTRANSCO)}

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶21

WRIT PETITION N0.33425 of 20lO

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2"d respondent in issuing Lr.No.ADE/ON /CC/Ct /Dt / F-A4-274O /D.No.864 dated 26.tt.2OIO as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 not to proceed to recover the ba.lalce amount of alleged pilferage charges without making final assessment in accordance with Section 126 ofthe Indian Electricity Act, 2OO3 and to pass such other order or order.

¶24

Brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ petition are that the petitioner is running a bakery in the premises for which he has obtained electricity connection and the bills are paid promptly. It is , submitted that there was an inspection of the petitioner,s premises on 29.O8.2OO9 and thereafter, a notice dated 31.0g.20O9 was issued to the petitioner stating that the petiiioner has exceeded in consuming the electricity of contracted load i.e., lOOO KW and the petitioner was therefore required to deposit an additional amount of Rs.18,0OO/- towards Development Charges and Rs.7,2OO/_ towards Security Deposit and the petitioner accordingly paid the sarne. It is further submitted that thereafter after nearly two months, the respondent No.2 has issued another notice to the petitioner on

¶25

_,q . +.*

¶26

PIID.J \ l,\o^11.115 ofl0l0

¶27

¶28

24.7O.2OO9 stating that the meter of the petitioner has been examined in MRT lab and it was found that the petitioner has indulged in theft of energr by tampering the meter. Alleging the theft of electricity, provisional assessment of Rs.2,28,948/- was made and the petitioner was directed to deposit 5O%. of the provisional assessment amount, if he was interested to obtain reconnection. Aggrieved by the notice dated 24.1O.2009, the petitioner approached this Court by frling W.P.No.23755 of 2OOg and this Court disposecl of the said Writ Petition with the following directions:-

¶29

"6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to restore power supply to the petitioner's service connection, subject to the condition of his depositing an amount of Rs.6O,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) within a period of two weeks from today, which will be in addition to payment of regular consumption and demand charges. It is open for the respondents to proceed with the hnal assessment proceedings, ald the amount of deposit to be made pursuant to the orders of this Court shall be subject to the Iinal orders to be passed in the asscssment proceedings. No order as to costs.'

¶30

Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the petitioner has paid Rs.60,OO0/- and thereafter, has been paying the current consumption charges regularly and the respondents have restoredl the power supply but issued a letter dated 26.11 .2OlO stating that there is no provision for making any final assessment under the

¶31

Pi{l)., W l'No:1142-5 otl0l0

¶32

¶33

¶34

Indian Electricitv Act, 2OO3 and insisted that^{the petitionershould} pay the balance amount of Rs.1,98,948/-. Challenging^{the said} notice dated 26.11.2O1O, the present Writ^{Petitionhas been filed.}

¶35

Le.rrned counsel for the petitioner submitted that^after inspection of the meter in the^premises of the^{petitioner on} 29.O8.2OO9 , there^was no further^{inspection and tJle meterwas} taken away from his^premises. He drew the^{attentionof this Court} to the specific averment made in the counter^{affidavit filed by the} respondent stating that the meter^{has been takenaway and has} been inspected in the MRT lab and that it^has been^{found that the} meter has been tampered. Learned counsel^{for the petitioner refuted} the said allegation made in the counter affidavit.

¶36

l,earned Standing Counsel however relied upon^{the averment} made in the counter affidavit- He further submitted^{that the matter} can be considered by the Special Court.

¶37

In view of the provisional assessment made by^the respondents and the ltnal assessment can be done only^after adjudication of the issue by the Special Court, this Court^{finds that} the petitioner has already paid Rs.60,O00/- as^per the directions^of this Court in W.P.No.23755 of 2009 ald since, the^{Iinal assessment} has not been done and it is only provisional hssessment and the

¶38

¶39

PNlI).J \ P No^j:].115 ot llrll)

¶40

¶41

petitioncr has raised several^{objections on theprovisional} assessment made, this Court deems it^{ht and proper to direct the} respondents to refer the matter^{to the Special Court for adjudication} of the issues with regard to^{the tampering of the meter and whethcr} the meter has at all been^{takenawayby the respondents.}

¶42

Accordingly, the Writ^{Petitionis disposed of. There shallbe no} order as to costs

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions, if^{any, pending in this Writ Petition,} shall stand closed.

¶44

To,

¶45

SD/-V.KAVITHA //rRUE coPY//^AsslsrANr [59!'o SECTION OFFICER

¶46

1 The Chairman Cum-Managing Director, Central power Distribution Comoanv or AP. Limited, C/o Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad. Hvderabad.

¶47

2 The Assistant Divisional. Engineer (Operations), TS epDCL., Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

¶48

3 One CC to SRI VEDULA SR|N|VAS. Advocate IOpUCI

¶49

4 one cc to sRt R. vtNoD REDDY (SC FoR TSTRANSCO) [OPUC] 5

¶50

5 Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210412023

ORDER

WP.No.33425 ot 2010

t,:- S IA7.{ o
f:,'
'.i [ 3 lti'd ?[?3
<br>....,/.'..

¶59

D!SPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

Cre^J (a 5*, 7b

N.a.Panjawani v. Central Power Distribution Company of Ap. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.a.Panjawani v. Central Power Distribution Company of Ap. Limited

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

A.Adi Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

M/S. Siri Organic Crop Care Vs The State of Telangana and another

M/s. Sri Rama Organics Vs The State of Telangana

Andhra Pradesh Primary Teachers Association, Vs the Government of a.P., and Ano.

M/s. Avi Additives (P) Ltd., Plot No.4, Vs The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory

M/s. Printwell, represented by its Proprietor Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development