THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :18138 of 2006 Date: 21.6.2010 Between: Nap Flour Mill, Tadepalligudem ..... PETITIONER AND Superintending Engineer(Assessments), Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Not present. Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, S.C. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :18138 of 2006 ORDER: When the interlocutory application in the writ petition came up for hearing on 18.6.2010, this Court directed the writ petition to be posted for disposal as the scope of the interlocutory application and the writ petition was identical. Accordingly, the case has been listed under the caption ‘for orders’ today. There is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, which is a consumer of the respondents, running a flour mill, filed the present writ petition questioning the proceedings dated 28.8.2006 of respondent No.4, whereby the sum of Rs.2,66,142/- being 50% of the provisionally assessed amount of the alleged loss sustained by the respondents on account of the pilferage along with supervision charges of Rs.150/- and reconnection charges of Rs.50/- was demanded. This Court, by order dated 1.9.2006, directed restoration of power supply to the service connection subject to the petitioner depositing the sum of Rs.1,35,000/-. In the writ petition, the petitioner questioned the allegation that it has indulged in pilferage apart from questioning the quantum of assessment. In my opinion, these issues are not germane for consideration at this stage, because under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’), the respondents are vested with the power and authority to make a provisional assessment and demand the amount so assessed, pending determination of the petitioner’s civil liability under Section 154(5) of the Act, by the appropriate Civil Court. Ordinarily, this Court declines to interfere with exercise of such power. But, having regard to the pleas raised by the petitioner that the assessment of the alleged loss of power is bloated up, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the petitioner pays the sum equal to 50% of the provisional assessment amount, pending determination of its liability by the competent Court under Section 154(5) of the Act. As this Court has already directed restoration of power supply on the petitioner paying Rs.1,35,000/-, the petitioner shall pay the balance amount equal to 50% of the provisional assessment amount within a period of six weeks from today. If such payment is made, the respondents shall continue the power supply till the petitioner’s civil liability is decided by the competent Court. On receipt of such payment within the above stipulated time, the respondents shall initiate appropriate steps before the competent Court for adjudication of the petitioner’s civil liability. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 21st June, 2010 pnb