HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No. 24960 of 2004 DATED: 15-02-2008 Between: Vasikarla Yadagiri ……………. Petitioner and 1. The Superintending Engineer, Electrical Assessments (Spl), 4th Floor, R.No.411, New Buildings, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and two others. ………. Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No. 24960 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to call for the records in the proceedings, dated 19-05-2003 of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner is an LT-III Consumer. The electricity connection was in the name of his father. On 06-04-1993, the meter was inspected by the officials of the respondents and booked a case against Thatikonda Ranga Rao, who is the Managing Partner of Bhavani Merchants and he was transacting the business on behalf of the firm. He contended that the father of the petitioner was the original consumer and after his death in 1997, the petitioner succeeded to the property and he entered into an agreement of lease with one Guntuu Hanumantha Rao from 01-10-1986 to 31-10-1991. The Thatikonda Ranga Rao is the brother-in-law of the said Hanumantha Rao and he is the Managing Partner of the firm by name Bhavani Merchants. Being the Managing Partner of the firm, the Thatikonda Ranga Rao did business transaction and he entered into an agreement with the petitioner for two years with effect from 01-11-1991 to 11-10-1993 and as per the lease agreement, the said Thandikonda Ranga Rao has to pay the electrical charges, telephone and municipal taxes etc. to the concerned department. On 06-04-1993, the electricity department officials raided the mill and booked a case against the said Thatikonda Ranga Rao on the ground that he had pilfered the energy and the service was disconnected. Subsequently, the said Thatikonda Ranga Rao has filed a case before the District Consumer Forum vide C.D.No.224 of 1993 without informing the facts to the petitioner and later, the petitioner was also impleaded as third party. In the proceedings, the departmental officials has filed a counter against the said Thatikonda Ranga Rao clearly stating that he was solely responsible for the pilferage of energy. Thereafter, on the complaint of the Divisional Engineer a case in Cr.No.13/96 was registered against Thatikonda Ranga Rao, the petitioner and others and the same was tried in C.C.No.157 of 1996. At that juncture, a notice from the Superintending Engineer was issued and explanation was submitted by the petitioner on the relevant documents. The said officer passed the illegal order making the petitioner responsible for the pilferage of energy and ordered to pay a sum of Rs.5,20,307-50 ps along with other charges treating the petitioner as a consumer for the above service without scrutinizing the material on record. 3. The petitioner contends that he is not the consumer as contended by the Superintending Engineer and the energy was drawn by Thatikonda Ranga Rao, who was in the premises as lessee, therefore, he dissolved liability and requested to quash the proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents do not know whether the premises was leased out to Thatikonda Ranga Rao by the petitioner. No lease deed has been filed and no intimation was given to the departmental officials prior to the date of inspection. 5. It is an undisputed fact that the service is standing in the name of the petitioner’s father and the petitioner succeeded the property, therefore, the primary responsibility is on the petitioner to see that proper arrangement is made for transfer of the service in the name of the lessee during the existence of the lease. In the absence of such intimation to the electricity department, they are right in booking the petitioner for the pilferage of energy. Being the owner of the property, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to see that the electricity is drawn legally and if he allows any pilferage of energy, he is vicariously liable for the unlawful act of the lessee. If there is any agreement between the lessor and the lessee, it is for them to see that the agreement is enforced between them, but it is not binding on the electricity department, unless there is transfer of service or undertaking by the lessee to pay the charges due to the electricity department. In the absence of such material, the electricity department is right in making the petitioner liable to pay the amount. There is no illegality in the order and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr. G.YETHIRAJULU, J Date:15-02-2008 YCR