THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 4829 of 2006 O r d e r: The petitioner is running a Marriage Function Hall. The respondents-APCPDCL provided electricity connection to the Function Hall. The respondents alleging that on inspection they found that the petitioner was found to be pilfering energy, issued provisional assessment notice dated 08.10.2001, estimating the loss at Rs.7,62,665/-. Thereafter, vide letter dated 08.02.2002, purportedly passed final assessment orders assessing the loss at Rs.4,82,760/-, and vide orders dated 19.03.2002, demanded the petitioner to pay the said amount along with Rs.150/- towards supervision charges. The petitioner assailing the said demand notice earlier filed writ petition in W.P. No. 26779 of 2003 contending that pursuant to the provisional assessment orders dated 19.11.2001, and as such, the demand is illegal. This Court by order dated 28.01.2004, disposed of the writ petition, relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority, having considered the appeal, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is responsible for pilferage of energy, and accordingly vide order dated 04.02.2006 estimated the loss suffered by APCPDCL at Rs.3,77,163/- and demanded the petitioner to pay the said amount along with Rs.150/- towards supervision charges. Questioning this order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not indulge in any pilferage of energy. He submits that since the meter fixed to the Function Hall records an average consumption of 600 units per month, the respondents could neither have billed over and above the said average billable units nor could have demanded amounts for the said sum. He submitted that the mode of assessment adopted by the respondents, is bad, in that he contended that even if the petitioner was found to have pilfered energy, having regard to the provisions of Section 126(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the assessment could not be more than a rate equal to one-and- half times the tariff applicable, and as such, the impugned final assessment demand, as revised in appeal, which exceeds the quantum fixed, is bad. He further submitted that the impugned order is not in terms of Condition No. 39.10 of the Sale of Electricity to Persons Other Than Licensees-Revised Terms and Conditions of Supply. He, thus prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. On behalf of the respondents, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, APCPDCL, filed counter. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APCPDCL reiterating the counter averments submitted that the service connection of the petitioner was inspected on 05.10.2001, and basing on the inspection report, which found that the petitioner indulged in pilferage of energy, issued provisional assessment notice dated 08.10.2001, followed by a show cause notice dated 19.11.2001. Thereafter, considering the objections raised by the petitioner to the show cause notice in his representations dated 18.10.2001 and 18.12.2001, passed final assessment orders dated 08.02.2002, assessing the value of the pilfered energy at Rs.4,82,760/- . In appeal, the appellate authority, having considered the grounds of appeal and having examined the records, felt that the assessment made taking into account the average consumption, is not justified, and accordingly, vide order dated 04.02.2006 impugned in the writ petition, estimated the value of the pilfered energy at Rs.3,75,163/-, and no exception can be taken thereto. He submitted that since the pilferage in question relates to a date prior to the Electricity Act, 2003 came into operation, the petitioner is not entitled to seek assessment of the value of the pilfered energy in terms of the provisions of Section 126(6) thereof. Hence, he submitted that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APCPDCL. Though the petitioner contends that the mode of assessment adopted by the respondents is bad and illegal inasmuch as it has not been made as per the provisions of Section 126(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides that assessment shall be made at a rate equal to one-and-half times the tariff applicable, the fact remains, the same is disputed by the respondents contending that said provision is not applicable to the petitioner for the reason that the pilferage relates to a date much prior to the coming into force the Electricity Act, 2003. In fact, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the appellate authority, would disclose that the assessment made by the appellate authority, relates to a period much prior to the Electricity Act, 2003 coming into force. In assessing the pilfered energy, the appellate authority had taken the period from 06.10.2000 to 05.10.2001 by taking into consideration the consumption hours at eight per day and 20 days per month, and having regard to the gadgets used by the petitioner to run the Function Hall, assessed the value of the pilfered energy at Rs.3,75,163/-, and since in terms of Condition No. 39.10.4 of the Sale of Electricity to Persons Other Than Licensees-Revised Terms and Conditions of Supply, the appellate authority, is entitled to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, set aside the assessment or pass any order as mentioned therein, no exception can be taken impugned assessment order passed by the appellate authority, assessing the value of the pilfered energy, by reducing the same taking into consideration the representations of the petitioner and examination of the records. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 1st February, 2008. KSR