IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 22698 of 2002 Between: Ch. Narender, S/o. Rangaiah, Parvedula village, Peddavoora mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited, Rep. by its Chief Managing Director, Vidyuthsoudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer (Electrical) Operation, Central Power Distribution Co.of A.P. Limited, Singarenibhavan, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer [Electrical] Operation, Central Power Distribution Co.of. A.P. Limited, Nalgonda. 4 The Assistant Divisional Enginer [Electrical] Operation, Haliya, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Nalgonda District. 5 The Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Officer, A.P.TRANSCO, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. .....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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the amount pursuant to the ﬁnal assessment Order No.SEA/HYD/F.NLG 548/SAH 9143/D.No.2312, dated:25.6.2002 of the Superintending Engineer, Assessments/A.P.C.P.D.C.Ltd., Hyderabad as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to condition No.39.10 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of the A.P.Transco. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. O.Manohar Reddy. The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22698 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is proprietor of M/s. Venkateswara Rice Mill, a non-trading mill. He has availed L.T. service (15 HP) bearing service connection No.239. On 26.03.1998 fourth respondent inspected the petitioner’s premises and found that there was no T.C. seal and all 4 Nos. MRT meter cover seals, seals were tampered, sealing wires were coming out of one side hole of seal bits, and the pattern of consumption was very low. From these ﬁndings fourth respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner resorted pilferage of energy. He, therefore, provisionally assessed the value of the pilfered energy at Rs.1,99,591/-, disconnected power supply and advised the petitioner to pay 50% of the value so as to continue power supply. The petitioner appears to have deposited an amount of Rs.33,324/- and availed power supply. After receiving report from fourth respondent, third respondent issued a show cause notice dated 09.11.1998. Though initially the petitioner appeared through an Advocate, he almost was made ex parte before third respondent. Be that as it is, by impugned order dated 25.06.2002, third respondent reduced the value of pilfered energy to Rs.64,728/-. Aggrieved by ﬁnal assessment order dated 25.06.2002 passed by third respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal under condition 39.10 of the terms and conditions of supply. As per this condition an appealee is required to pay 50% of ﬁnal assessment value. As the petitioner already paid an amount of Rs.33,324/- in March/April, 1998, for continuing power supply, the appeal was accepted. It is alleged that in spite of the same, there was threat of disconnection. Therefore, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition assailing ﬁnal assessment order dated 25.06.2002 passed by third respondent. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 14.11.2002, granted interim direction not to disconnect power supply. Though the matter was admitted about six years back, the respondents have not ﬁled any counter-aﬃdavit. Therefore, this Court is inclined to proceed applying the principle of non- traverse. Admittedly as the petitioner preferred an appeal and already paid amount which is more than 50% of ﬁnal assessment value, there is no question of taking any coercive steps against the petitioner. It is not clear from the record or from the submissions made across the bar as to whether the appeal is still pending or not. Therefore, at this point of time, especially when the appeal is pending, this Court is not inclined to go into merits of the case. If the appeal is not disposed of yet, second respondent may do so immediately. Subject to the condition that the petitioner continues to pay CC charges regularly, his power connection shall not be disconnected. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 11th September, 2008 GHN To 1 The Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited, Rep. by its Chief Managing Director, Vidyuthsoudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer (Electrical) Operation, Central Power Distribution Co.of A.P. Limited, Singarenibhavan, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer [Electrical] Operation, Central Power Distribution Co.of. A.P. Limited, Nalgonda. 4 The Assistant Divisional Enginer [Electrical] Operation, Haliya, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Nalgonda District. 5 The Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Officer, A.P.TRANSCO, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 6 Two CD copies