HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39344 of 2014 Date:23.12.2014 Between:
Garden Retreat Club, Mulugu Village, reptd by its Partner- C.A.Vedprakash . Petitioner And:
The State of Telangana., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Hyderabad and three others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Energy (TS) Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Sri O.Manoher Reddy The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside letter No.ADE/Gajwel/F/D.No.596/14, dated 01.12.2014, in connection with Case No.DPE/MDK/SD02/7453/14, of the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation), Gajwel.
The petitioner is a consumer under L.T. category-II (B) of respondent Nos.2 to 4. On 20.11.2014, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, SD-II, DPE, Medak, has inspected the petitioner’s premises and allegedly found that two motors of 10 HP each installed to two bore wells were directly connected to the nearby agriculture L.T. overhead lines by using black PVC insulated Aluminium wire. On the report submitted by the inspecting officer, the Assistant Divisional Officer (Operation), Gajwel, has issued the impugned provisional assessment notice, whereunder he has assessed a sum of Rs.10,12,106/- as the loss suffered by respondent No.2 on account of the alleged theft of energy by the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to pay the said amount and get its civil liability determined under Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’). The Assistant Divisional Engineer has also quantified the compounding fee at Rs.67,000/- and informed the petitioner through the Station House Officer, Vigilance and APTS Police Station, Medak to pay the compounding fee for closing of the criminal case as first offence. The petitioner further pleaded that the allegation that it has indulged in theft of energy is wholly false.
Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated the said plea at the hearing.
The question whether the petitioner has indulged in theft of energy or not needs to be adjudicated by the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Act. Therefore, it is not appropriate for this Court to delve into this aspect. However, under Section 135 of the Act, the licensee is empowered to make a provisional assessment. Considering the fact that the provisional assessment is based on theoretical calculation, I am of the opinion that it would be unreasonable to insist on payment of the entire provisional assessment amount pending determination of the petitioner’s civil liability.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that it would be reasonable, if the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.4 lakhs besides the sum of Rs.67,000/- towards the compounding fee.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to restore the power supply to the petitioner’s Service Connection, subject to the latter paying Rs.4 lakhs towards the provisional assessment amount. The respondents are also directed to receive the sum of Rs.67,000/- towards the compounding fee and close the criminal case registered against the petitioner. Within two months from the date of payment of the said amounts, respondent No.2 is directed to refer the dispute to the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Act for determination of the petitioner’s civil liability. Till such determination is made, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are restrained from collecting the balance amount of Rs.6,12,106/- from the petitioner.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.49363 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
23rd December 2014 DR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY