Disposed

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

Telangana HC20 Nov 2024WP/36870/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the inclusion of provisional assessed amounts in electricity bills due to alleged energy theft. The Court directed the respondents to refer the civil liability matter to the Special Section Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, for final assessment, while restraining coercive steps pending the outcome. The petition was dispo

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to refer the issue to the Special Section Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for assessment of civil liability within eight weeks. Respondents restrained from

P.Ramakrishnaiah Vs The Assistant… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

|³²⁵²¹

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 36870 OF 2012

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Ramakrishnaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, aged about 68years, Occ Retd from Defence Services, r/o. Plot No '15, Sapthagiri Colony, Rethi Bowli, Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad-28.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^maybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of lvlandamus, 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. 2784112OO7, dated 17.6.2009 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^{Articles14 and '19 of the} Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the^{respondentsnot to includethe} balance Provisional assessment amounts as computed^{by them and insist for} payment of the same without passing the final assessment orders.

¶15

?.F

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 46791 0F 2012

¶17

Petition und,3r section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumsitances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to accept the monthly bill amounts without insistirg upon payment of arrears in pursu;rnce to the provisional assessment orders ibr the service connection No. SZ 046944 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH VENKATESHWARA REDDy

¶19

Counsel for the Respohdents: SRt R VTNOD REDDY(SC FOR TSIRANSCO)

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶22

W P I N .368 of 20 2

¶23

ORD ER:

¶24

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

¶25

The^{petitionerapproachedthe Court seek'ng}

¶26

prayer as under:

¶27

"...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-lt-2O07^{and even beforepassingthe} final assessment^{orders orfurnishing the} documents in terms^{of the directions of this} Honourable Court as^{made inWP Nos'} 2784t/2007, 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 India and^{consequently direct the respondents} not to include the^{balance Provisional assessment}

¶28

¶29

sNl \r, -.]6870 2012

¶30

amourts as computed by them and insist^lbr payrrent of the same without passing the final assessment orders and to^pass such other order^or orders as this Honble Court may^deemsfit -^ust and prroper in the circumstances of the^case".

¶31

3 This Cou rt vide its order dated^{29.11.2O12DAssed} lnterim order i^{n W-P} N o 3647OoJ2O12 in favour of t^he oetitione^r_o bservinq as under:

¶32

'' t{otice before admission.

¶33

It is the allegation of the petitioner that pursuant to earlier provisional assessment proce,:dings, there is no final assessment yet Dnd 50o/o of the^provisional assessment amount^has alreacly been^paid by the^petitioner.

¶34

Learned Standing Counsel for APCPDT:L appear ng for the respondents seeks time to^get instructions.

¶35

t'ending further orders, respondents are directe,l not to take any steps for disconnection of power ;upply for service connection No. S2049(i,+4 on the ground that the^petitioner has not deposited Rs.50,[]76l-, which is stated to be charged on the allegation of^pilferage. However, the^petitioner has to pa'/ the regular bill excluding the said amount included in the current bills.

¶36

F'ost on 10.72.2072".

SN. J wP 16870 2012

4 Sri R. Vinod R.eddv.^{IearnedStandanqCounsefor} TST ansco, a^{Dearinoon behalfof resDondents o!aced} relia ce on the avermen^{ts madeat oara} os.3. 4, 5 and 6of the counte^{r affidavit filed on behalfof resoondent} No.1 Para Nos. 3 4 5^{and6ofthe counter affidavit} file onb half of ResDo ndent o.1 ar extra cted hereund er:

¶41

'3. It is submitted that^the demand notice dated 22-ll-2007 has^been issued to the petitioner under Section 135 of^{the ElectricityAct'} 2003 assessing the^{revenue loss causedat} Rs.1,01,852.00/-^{and the petitioner was directed} to deposit the 50o/o^{of the assessedamount i'e',} Rs.50,926.00/- and the^{entirecompounding} amount. The^{petitionerwas also served with a} calculation sheet^{clearly detailingthe connected} load and the^{pilfered units along with the} provisional assessment notice.

¶42

It is submitted^{that the petitioneris liable to be} prosecuted under section 135^{of Electricity Act} 2003 for theft of^{energy.SpecialCourts have} been constituted^{to fix the Civil Liabilityin cases} of theft. c t itio h s referred to the^{SecialCourtad the Civil} Liabilitv sh ll^{beassessed under sectaon154}

SN. J wP lri870 2012

(5) of the ElectriciW Act 2OO3. The r s case ca be rred to the Special Court onlv^{afteroavment of the} ovtsl onal asse^{ssed amount,}

¶47

It is submitted^{that in theft cases the matters} are referred to Special^{Courts under Section 154} (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003^{and there is no} provision in the electricity Act, 2003^{to finally} assess the amount towards^{theft of energy.}

¶48

It is :;ubmitted that this^{Honorable Court by} order dated: 29-ll-2012^{in WP' No. 36870 of} 2012 has directed the^{Respondent not to takeany} coerciver steps as the^{petitioneralready deposited} 5Oo/o of :he^{provisionallyassessedamount.The} service has been^{reconnected after complying} with the orders of this^{Honorable Court'The} petitionr:r is liable to^pay the balance^{50o/o of the} provisionally assessed amount and surcharge thereon and if the orders^{dated 29-ll-20t2 in} W.P. No. 36870 of 2012 are^{nof vacatedit !/ill} cause irreparable injury to the^respondents company"

¶49

The le;arned Standing Counsel Sri^{R.Vinod Reddy,} further submits that in view of the^{fact that the petitioner} complied with the order of this Court dated 29.1 l.2OL2 passed in W.P. No. 36870 of 2012 and deposited 50o/o of the

,!t :

SN, J wP 16E70 20t2

\ \

provisional assessed amount, the respondents may be directed to refer the subject issue under Section 154 (5) of the Electricity Act, 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. 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, appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶56

Takang into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.l at para Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 referred to and extracted above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to refer the subject issue to the Special Court under Section tS4 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2OO3 for assessment of the civil 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

, (

SN, J wt l6tt70 2012

,.:l

are passed expeditiously^{by the SpecialCourt under} Section 154⁽⁵⁾ of the^{Electricity Act, 2OO3. However,}

¶62

there shal! be no order^{as to costs.}

¶63

The rniscellaneous applications,^{ifany, shall stand}

¶64

closed. However, there shall^{be no order} 9s^{to costs.}

¶65

SD/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY// I

,1 STCTION OFFICER

To,

The Assistant Divisional^{Engineer (Operations), APCPDCL'Gc'lconda,} Lungarhouse, Hyderabad.

¶70

The Assistant Accounts^{Officer, Electricity Revenue Officer-lX, APCPDCL'AC} Guards, Hydr-'rabad.

¶71

One CC to SiRl CH VENKATESHWARA^{REDDYAdvocate} [3PUC]

¶72

One CC to SRl. R VINOD^{REDDY(SCFORTSTRANSCO)} IOPUC]

¶73

Two CD Copie's

¶74

i(KS ot'cHL

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011112024

ORDER

WP.No.36870 of 2012

'./4
)
sf
'i1 'frAfr 2w z
P
i
i5 '.4'i c,-l ,.y

¶80

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶81

@ (J1{ .,.
\3UJL5

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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)

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

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

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