IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5312 of 2009 Between: 1 V.V.Suryanarayana S/o.Late V.Ganiraju R/o.D.No.6-11-15, main Road Narsapur, W.G.District 2 L.Srinivasa RAo S/o.Satyanarayana R/o.narsapur, W.G.District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, E.P.D.C. of AP Limited Gajjala Cheruvu, Eluru, West Godavari District 2 The Assitant Divisional Engineer (Operation) Sub-Division, APEPDCL, Narsapur 3 The Chairman cum Superintending Engineer Organization circle, A.P.E.P.D.C.L. Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records and issue a direction or an order or a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the mode adopted by the respondents in computing provisional assessment as wholly illegal, arbitrary, capricious without following the due procedure under law and the rules framed under AP Electricity Act, and opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the provisional assessment notices bearing ADE/C&O/NSP/F.TE- MP-BB CASE/D 1663./2008 dated 31.10.2008 pertaining in respect of SE.No.9851 and LR.No.ADE/C&O/NSP/F.TE-MP-BB CASE/D 1656/08 dated 31.10.2008 in respect of service connection No.3952. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SUBRAHMANYAM KURELLA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 31.10.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent – Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation), Sub-Division, APEPDCL, Narsapur in respect of Service Connection Nos.9851 and 3952. The case of the 1st petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the two mulgies in the house in question and he leased out the said mulgies to the 2nd petitioner for which S.C.Nos.9851 and 3952 are given. While so, on 31.10.2008, he was issued with provisional assessment notice for theft of energy assessing the liability to be Rs.50,908/- in respect of S.C.No.9851 and Rs.1,38,850/- in respect of SC No.3952 and he was directed to pay 50% of the assessed amount besides payment of compounding fee. It is submitted that the petitioner has already paid the said amounts under protest and preferred an appeal against the said order before the Divisional Engineer, Rajahmundry stating that the shortfall of units is not properly calculated and that as per Section 126(6) of the Electricity Act, it is only 1 ½ times tariff applicable to the case of the petitioner whereas it was taken as 3 times in arriving the assessment for the service connections. That apart, while the assessment should be based only for three months period, the authorities have computed for the whole year contrary to law. It is also stated that on 2.12.2008, he preferred an appeal before the Chairman, Forum for Redressal of Grievances of Consumer under APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam. Again on 3.1.2009 the petitioner has made a representation to the Superintending Engineer, Assessment Circle, Visakhapatnam, the 2nd respondent herein and the same is still pending. The grievance of the 1st petitioner is that without disposing of his representation, the 2nd respondent is threatening him to pay the balance amount as per the demand dated 31.10.2008 else to disconnect the power supply. The learned standing counsel for the respondent company submits that since the representation of the 1st petitioner is still pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, instead of this Court going into the merits of the matter, the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider the said representation, for which course of action, the petitioners also agreed. In the circumstances, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, the 2nd respondent herein is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the 1st petitioner after taking into consideration the objections raised by him and till then the respondents shall not disconnect the power supply to the service connections in question. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.18.3.2009 Note: Furnish CC in 2 days (B/o) msv