THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.36354 of 2014 Dated: 28.11.2014 Between:
Manohar Yadav Alias Sudhakar Yadav .. Petitioner and The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, and another.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. D.V. Nagarjun Babu Counsel for the respondents: Mr. O. Manohar Reddy The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceedings in Lr.No.ADE/Miralam/D.No:1216 dated 18.10.2014 issued by respondent No.2, wherein he has provisionally assessed the energy allegedly pilfered by the petitioner at Rs.3,34,970/- and offered the petitioner the facility of payment of 50% of the said amount, which comes to Rs.1,67,485/-, and supervision charges of Rs.100/- + reconnection charges of Rs.75/-, for restoration of power supply. Respondent No.2 also informed the petitioner that he shall pay the balance 50% amount in two installments and that if he is willing to compound the offence, he has to pay further sum of Rs.22,000/- towards compounding fees.
Mr. D.V. Nagarjun Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.2 has unilaterally concluded that the petitioner has been involved in theft of energy, based on the purported MRT report, which was given behind the petitioner’s back. He has, further, submitted that had sufficient opportunity been given to the petitioner by the MRT lab, he would have explained the incriminating features allegedly noticed by the MRT.
Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, submitted that respondent No.2 is authorized to issue the provisional assessment notice under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’), and the regulations made thereunder and that the same is not liable to be interfered with.
Under Section 154(5) of the Act, the Special Court is empowered to determine the civil liability in case of theft of energy. Therefore, I am not inclined to adjudicate on the legality or otherwise of the provisional assessment notice at this stage.
At the hearing, it has come out that pursuant to the impugned notice, the petitioner has paid the compounding fees of Rs.22,000/-.
Considering the serious allegations made against the petitioner on one side and the grievance of the petitioner that the tentative conclusion arrived at by respondent No.2 was based on an ex parte MRT report on the other side, I consider that balance of interests can be maintained if the petitioner is permitted to pay 50% of the provisional assessment amount. On such payment, the respondents shall restore power supply to the petitioner’s service connection. The respondents are also directed to refer the issue relating to the petitioner’s civil liability to the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Act within one month from the date of payment by the petitioner. Till determination of the petitioner’s civil liability, the respondents shall not disconnect the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection for non-payment of the balance amount under the impugned provisional assessment notice.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.45515 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th November, 2014 IBL