Disposed

P.Ramakrishnaiah v. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations), Apcpdcl

Telangana HC20 Nov 2024WP/36845/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging provisional assessment orders for energy theft by directing the respondents to refer the issue of civil liability to the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The court also directed that no coercive steps be taken for the balance amount until the Special Court passes appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to refer the issue to the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and staying coercive steps.

P.Ramakrishnaiah Vs The Assistant Divisional… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 36845 OF 2012

¶7

Between:

¶8

P.Ramakrishnaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, aged about 6g years, Occ: . Retch from p.e{encc Services, Fl/o. plot No.^-15, Sapthaqin Colbny; Reihi- B;;ii; Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad-28

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations), ApCpDCL,, Golconda, Lungarhouse, Hyderabad-

¶12

2 The Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue, Officer-lX, ApCpDCL, AC Guards, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Artrcle 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of lhe respondents in including the alleged amounts commuted by it on the pretext of theft of energy through its provisional assessment order dated 22.11 .2002 and even before passing the final assessment orders or furnishing the documents in terms of the directions of this Hon'ble court as made in WP No. 2784112007, dated^.17-06-2009 and insisting upon to pay the bill including the provisional assessment balance amounts in the monthly bill of November, as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly direct the respondents not to include he balance Provisional assessment amounts as computed by them and insist for payment of the same w;thout passing the final assessment orders.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2012 WPMP. NO: 46764 OF 20121

¶16

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the^{High Court may be pleased to direct} the respondents to accept the monthly^{bills amountswithoutinsistingupon} payment of arrears in pursuance to the provisional assessment orders^{for the} service connection Nos.SZ 051 138^pending disposal^{of the above writ petition}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. VENKATESHWARA^REDDY

¶18

Counset forthe Respondents: SRI R. VINOD REDDY(SC^{FOR TSTRANSCO)} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶20

wRrT PETITION No.35845 of 20L2

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard Sri Ch, Venkateshwara Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TS Transco, appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶23

The petitioner approached the . Court seeking prayer as under:

¶24

"...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in including the alleged amounts commuted by it on the pretext of theft of energy through its provisional assessment order dated 22-11-2007 and even before passing the final assessment orders or furnishing the documents in terms of the directions of this Honourable Court as made in Wp Nos. 2784I/2007, dated L7.06.2009 and insisting upon to pay the bill including the provisional assessment balance amounts in the monthly bill of November as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to include the balance^provisional assessment

¶25

¶26

SN,^J wP i6845²⁰¹²

¶27

amounts^{as computedby them and insistfor} payment of the^{same without passingthe final} assessment^{orders and to pass such other order or} orders as^{this Honble Court may deems fit just} and^{proper in the circumstancesof the case"'}

¶28

3 Thi Co rt rd r 29 1 1 s n r rl w I o o fa ur f he D ati ner^ob rvrno^as nd r:

¶29

"Notice before^admlssion'

¶30

It is the allegation^{of the petitionerthat} pursuant to earlier^{provisional assessment} proceedings, there^{is no final assessment yet and} 50o/o of^{the provisional assessmentamounthas} already been^{paidby the petitioner'}

¶31

Lea rned Standing^{Counsel for APCPDCL} appearing for the respondents^{seeks time to get} instructions.

¶32

Pending^{furtherorders,resPondents} are directed not^{to take any steps for disconnectionof} power supply for^{service connection No' 52051138} on the^{ground that the petitioner has not deposited} Rs.7,12,879/-,^{which is stated to be chargedon} the allegation^{of pilferage. However,the petitioner} has to pay the regular^{bill excludingthe said} amount included^{in the currentbills'}

Post on 10.72.2012".

<br>

SN, J wP 36845 2012

4 edd earn tandi c lf Tr rtn beh ofr d n la lian on eav men a t r os. and th un ffi tfi on half re en 1.P raN 3 nd th n f dav ed b h of tN h eun

¶39

'3. It is submitted that the demand notice dated 2B-12-2Ot8 has been issued to the petitioner under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 assessing the revenue loss caused at Rs.5,55,012.00/- and the petitioner was directed to deposit the 50o/o of the assessed amount i.e., Rs. 2,77,006,00/- and the entire compounding amount. The petitioner was also served with a calculation sheet clearly detailing the connected load and the pilfered units along with the provisional assessment notice.

¶40

It is submitted that the petitioner is Iiable to be prosecuted under section 135 of Electricity Act 2003 for theft of energy. Special Courts have been constituted to fix the Civil Liability in cases of theft. The case of the oetitioner has to be ref rred to the S ecial Court and the Civil abi sh e d s on

SN, J wP i6845²⁰¹²

(5 ) t he Electri itv^A 2oo3. T e io t s c n e re t ial Co rt n a r m t f e enti re orovis^{ionalassessedamount.}

¶45

It is^{submittedthat this Honorable Court by} order dated:^{2g-tl-2012in WP' No' 36845 of} 2012 has directed^{the petitioner to deposit50o/o} of the^{provisionalassessed amountand the} petitioner has^{paid the said amount'The service} has been^{reconnecteclaftercomplying with the} orders of this^{HonorableCourt'The petitionerls} liable to^{pay the balance50o/o of the provisionally} assessed^{amountand surchargethereon and if} the orders^{dated 29-11-20L2in W'P' No' 36845} of 2072 are^{not vacated it will cause irreparable} injury to the^{respondents company"'}

¶46

The learned^{Standing CounselSri R'Vinod Reddy' submitsthat} in view of^{the fact that the petitionercompliedwith the order} of this Court^{dated 29'11.2012 passed in W'P' No' 36845of} 2O!2 and deposited^{50o/oof the provisional assessedamount'} the respondents^{may be directed to refer the subjectissue} under Section 154^{(5) of the ElectricityAct' 2003 to the} Special Court adjudicating^{the civil liability in cases of theft} which had been the^{usual order of this Court in theft matters'}

SN, J wP 16845 20r 2

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the said submission made by Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TS Transco, app,earing on behalf of respondents.

¶51

¶52

¶53

Taking into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.l at para Nos. 3, 4 and 5 referred to and extracted above, the writ petation is disposed of directing the respondents to refer the subject issue to the Special Court under Section 154 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2OO3 for assessment of the cavil liability of the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are directed not to initiate any coercive steps against the petitioner for the payment of Balance 5oo/o of the provisionally assessed amount as per the demand notice dated 28.12,2018 till appropriate orders are passed expeditiously by the Special Court under Section 154 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2OO3. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

.*&

.ra

SN, J wP 16845²⁰¹²

The miscellaneous^{applications, ifany, shall stand}

¶59

closed. However,^{there shall be.noorder as to costs'}

¶60

SD/-N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶61

//TRUE COPY// s^TIONOFFICER

¶62

To, 1 The Assistant^{Divisional Engineer (Operations)'APCPDCL"Golconda'} Lunoarhouse,^HYderabad.

¶63

2 il;T.;iJ;;i^{nJ"*"it otri."r, Electricitv Revenue'officer-lX'APCPDCL'} AC Guards,^HYderabad.

¶64

3 One CC to^{Sri CH. VenkateshwaraReddy'Advo,cate{OPUCI} 4 o;; Ca^{to Sri R VinodReddv(SCfor TSTRANSCO)toPUCl} 5 Two CD^CoPies

¶65

TJ GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011112024

ORDER

WP.No.36845 of 2012

I
1 1rt SIA t q-
ll
it k
)q
Oo 0l ri ^5
J
t
t o
O,:g p. -^' 'i

¶71

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION}

¶72

WITHOUT COSTS

¶73

ild

P.Ramakrishnaiah v. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations), Apcpdcl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramakrishnaiah v. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations), Apcpdcl

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

Smt. Bantu Lakshmi Vs The A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited

K.Premalatha, W/O K.Venkateshwarlu, Vs The state of Telangana, Through its Principal Secretary

A. Srinivasa Rao Vs The Executive Engineer Civil (Oandm)

P.Ramakrishnaiah Vs The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations)

Rana Manpower and Placement Services (P) Ltd., Vs Apsrtc

Md, M/S.Srini Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Hyderabad Vs Md, Apcpdcl, Hyderabad and 2 Others