THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.25046 OF 2004 Date: 03.06.2014 Between:
Srisailam Reddy … Petitioner And
1. The Chief General Manager/Commercial, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.25046 OF 2004 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of M/s. Vishnu Rice Mill at Karmanghat, Hyderabad and it was leased out to one Sri Rudraiah and Venkatesh to run the rice mill in 1992 on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-. The Assistant Engineer (Operation), Champapet served a demand notice on the petitioner in Form-A bearing No.001372 with D.No.699, dated 11.3.2004 alleging pilferage of electricity by the consumer. After due procedure, a final assessment order was passed on 30.09.1999 fixing final assessment at Rs.5,78,010/-. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order of the 3rd respondent, dated 30.09.1999 and the 2nd respondent by his order dated 26.10.2004 reduced the amount of pilferage to the tune of Rs.3,05,256/- plus Rs.150/- towards supervisory charges. The petitioner also filed mercy petition to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent rejected the said petition and confirmed the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 26.10.2004 vide his proceedings dated 23.11.2004. Challenging the said proceedings, the present writ petition was filed.
3. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents stating that due procedure was followed before taking action against the petitioner for pilferage. It was also stated that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by the petitioner and the power was restored.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during the relevant period the rice mill was under lease and he is in no way connected with the pilferage. It is also his contention that he was acquitted in a criminal case vide C.C.No.694 of 1997 filed under Section 379 of I.P.C. and under Sections 39 & 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, by the competent Court on 17.01.2006.
5. The consumer service was inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer/DPE- Hyderabad on 24.2.1995 and it was noticed that the meter box seal and terminal cover seal are found tampered. Hence it was held that the consumer committed pilferage of energy. The defence taken by the petitioner was the rice mill is located in rural area and the power supply was only for 9 hours a day and the mill could not be run for 3 to 4 hours daily due to meagre receipt of paddy for working. Therefore, he stated that the assessment made by the Department is very excessive and exorbitant. He also stated that his leaseholder expired and whereabouts of another working partner are not known. He pleaded that he cannot be made responsible or liable for the fault committed by them and he stated that there is no power supply, no transformer, no lines in the premises for the last eight years.
6. It is pertinent to notice that in his representation he did not dispute the very fact of pilferage, but he wanted to avoid the liability on the ground that the pilferage of energy must have been taken place by the lessees. Initially, an amount of Rs,5,78,010/- was assessed as loss sustained by the Board on account of pilferage and the said amount was reduced by the 2nd respondent by order dated 25/26.10.2004 to Rs.3,05,250/-.
7. In the absence of any valid defence by the petitioner and in view of the orders passed by the competent authorities, it cannot be said that the impugned order challenged in the present writ petition is illegal. The petitioner has already paid Rs.1,50,000/- and he still has to pay Rs.1,55,250/- towards the balance amount for the loss sustained due to pilferage.
8. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to pay Rs.1,55,250/- in three (3) equal monthly installments immediately after receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents are at liberty to take proceedings for recovery of the said amounts in accordance with law.
9. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 03.06.2014 GBS