THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WP No.28143 OF 2007 04-2-2008 Mohd. Adeeb Qureshi, S/o.late Sri AK Qureshi, Muslim, aged 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Hyderabad …… Petitioner AND The AP Transco Lok Adalat at Mint Compound, Hyderabad & Another ……… Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WP No.28143 OF 2007 ORDER:: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 17-11- 2007 passed in TLA No.9 of 2007 by the AP Transco Lok Adalat, Hyderabad, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent Lok Adalat to re-open the matter and decide the same after affording opportunity to the petitioner. Facts stated are that the petitioner’s premises in question was inspected by the 2nd respondent officials and alleged to have found the electric service connection tampered and, therefore, the 2nd respondent issued provisional assessment notice asking the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,70,524/-. It is stated that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and filed an application to refer the matter to the 1st respondent-Lok Adalat for settlement. It is stated that the 1st respondent taken up the case and issued notice to both the parties and called for records. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent-Lok Adalat without notice to him closed the matter by taking the case on 17-11-2007 though the matter was posted to 24-11-2007. Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the 1st respondent-Lok Adalat ought not to have closed the matter without notice to the petitioner by preponing the case. Inasmuch as the impugned docket order indicate that the matter was posted to 24-11-2007, the 1st respondent ought not to have taken up the matter on 17-11-2007 without notice to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner is given liberty to make an application to re-call the impugned docket order dated 17-11-2007 and on such an application being filed by the petitioner, the 1st respondent shall pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ B. Seshasayana Reddy, J Dated: 4th February, 2008 Nrg.