IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 17954 of 2001 Between: K.Gopal Reddy, S/o. Anki Reddy, M/s. Venugopal Slab Polishing Industry, Ramapuram Village, Owk Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, AP TRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer (Operations) APCPCL, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer (Assessment) APCPCL, Stone Buildings, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, (Operations), AP TRANSCO, Banaganapalle, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring the order passed by the 3rd Respondent herein in Order No.SEA/HYD/F.KNL-121/SAH 8225/D.No.194/01, dt. 10.5.2001 as confirmed by the 2nd Respondent herein in Order No.CE/OCPDCL/ASSESS/KLN/SE No.540/D.No.310/2001, dt. 20.7.2001 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. T.NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : MR. O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17954 OF 2001 ORDER : The petitioner herein who is carrying on the business of cutting and polishing of the slabs has been granted power supply from the AP TRANSCO under LT Category-III. On 10.03.2001, the service connection of the petitioner was inspected by the 4th respondent herein and alleging pilferage of electricity from the nearby Distribution Transformer, the supply of electricity was disconnected. Thereafter a provisional assessment order was served on the petitioner assessing the loss sustained by the AP TRANSCO on account of pilferage of energy at Rs.10,73,196-00 and calling upon the petitioner to submit his objections, if any. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation and after considering the same the 3rd respondent by order dated 10.05.2001 estimated the value of loss sustained by the AP TRANSCO on account of pilferage of energy at Rs.3,99,655-00. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the 2nd respondent. On re-appreciation of the material on record, the 2nd respondent confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent and dismissed the appeal by order dated 20.07.2001. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the assessment made by the 3rd respondent as upheld by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material on record, a concurrent finding of fact was recorded by both the authorities that the petitioner had indulged in pilferage of electricity. Absolutely no case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the said finding of fact. So far as the value of the loss assessed by the respondents, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents 2 and 3 committed a grave error in not taking into consideration the period of disconnection of the service. The said contention was considered and rejected by the 2nd respondent appellate authority holding that the period of disconnection cannot be deducted since the pilferage was done directly from the LT side of the distribution transformer where supply would be available, irrespective of the disconnection of the service. With regard to the number of working days, though initially the provisional assessment was made taking the working days as 360, after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, it was reduced to 300 days taking into consideration the weekly offs and holidays. I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the said assessment as arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever. In the circumstances, the interference by this Court is not warranted and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 19.01.2009 gbs