The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.32430 of 2014 Dated 29.10.2014 Between:
M/s.Sai Anupama Restaurant Formerly M/s.Anupama Southern Spice Restaurant Rep. by its Managing Partner, Mrs.J.Seetha Reddy.
…Petitioner And The State of Telangana Rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Energy & Power, Hyderabad and 3 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.S.Appadhara Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Energy Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4: Mr.O.Manohar Reddy, SC for SPDCL The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceeding in Lr.No.ADE/OP/SAINIKPURI/F.MATS D.NO:713/14, dated 25-10-2014, issued by respondent No.3 wherein he has provisionally assessed the energy, allegedly, pilfered by the petitioner at Rs.31,55,160/- and offered the petitioner the facility of payment of 50% of the said amount, which comes to Rs.15,77,580/-, and supervision charges of Rs.100 + auction charges of Rs.75/- for restoration of power supply. Respondent No.3 also informed the petitioner that it shall pay the balance 50% amount in two installments and that if it is willing to compound the offence, it has to pay further sum of Rs.1,57,000/- towards compounding fees.
Mr.S.Appadhara Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.3 has unilaterally concluded that his client 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, it would have explained the incriminating features, allegedly, noticed by the MRT.
Mr.O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, representing respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that respondent No.3 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. 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.3 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 1/3rd of the provisional assessment amount of Rs.31,55,160/- besides payment of compounding fees of Rs.1,57,000/-. As and when these amounts are paid, respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall restore power supply to the petitioner’s service connection. The said 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 receipt of the 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, WPMP.No.40534 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 29th October, 2014
LUR