THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 12602 OF 2004 Dated 6th July, 2010 Between: M/s Shiva Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd …Petitioner And The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.C.D.Sekhar for Sri P.Venugopal Counsel for the respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash order dated 25.06.2004 of respondent No.2 and consequential letter dated 14.07.2004 issued by respondent No.3. I have heard Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, learned counsel representing Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is an electricity consumer of the respondents having electricity connection under HT Category-I. The service connection was inspected by the Divisional Engineer/DPE/HT/Hyderabad on 24.12.1997 and he allegedly found certain incriminating aspects. Thereafter, a provisional notice was issued for Rs.33,82,380/- towards the loss of energy due to the alleged pilferage. Respondent No.3 made a final assessment order on 11.05.2001 confirming the amount mentioned in the provisional assessment notice. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2. In its appeal, the petitioner contended that there was no possibility of the meter counters lying inside the meter being tampered without tampering with the seals; that the seals were found in tact; that the meter box was a pilfer proof box, that unless external heating arrangement for melting the counters through the meter box view glass is made, it is impossible to meddle with the meter counters inside the meter box and that if such a heat is applied through ordinary glass, the glass would be broken. It was further contended that in the inspection notes dated 24.12.1997, no where it was mentioned that the meter view glass was found in broken condition. Respondent No.2, after examining the said contentions of the petitioner, and on a thorough verification of the records, converted the case of the petitioner to one of back billing from 22.11.1997 to 24.12.1997 and accordingly assessed the value of the electricity not billed by the meter at Rs.11,27,460/-. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted and in my view rightly that respondent No.2 has committed an error in treating the meter as defective because in his order respondent No.2 clearly observed as under. “In the minutes of joint inspection dated 30.12.1997 conducted at M/s Duke Arnics Lab where the meter under dispute was tested, it was mentioned that functionally the meter is working as per the internal display and the test results are as follows. Meter test results with reference to the meter internal display readings (counters got stuck-up and display reading were compared) At full load At 50% load (0.866 PF) (0.866 PF) +0.2% KWH +0.16% +0.68% KVAH +0.77% +0.29% KVARH +1.2% +0.58% KVA +0.71% The % errors are within the permissible limits.” Before converting the pilferage case into one of meter defect, respondent No.2 has not disagreed with the joint inspection report dated 30.12.1997 conducted by the meter manufacturer. Therefore the test report given by the manufacturer stating that the percentage of errors are within the permissible limits remained unchallenged. That being so, there is neither rationale nor justification in respondent No.2 treating the case as one of meter defect. Respondent No.2, having tacitly accepted the petitioner’s contention that there was no pilferage, ought to have dropped further action in the face of the test report of the manufacturer showing that the percentage of errors in the meter was within the permissible limits. The action of respondent No.2 in converting the dispute into one of back billing by assuming that the meter is defective cannot therefore be sustained in law. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order of respondent No.2 is quashed and consequently, the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount under the proceedings issued by respondents 3 and 2. The amount paid by the petitioner towards the part liability imposed under the impugned proceedings shall be adjusted in its future consumption bills. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th July, 2010 vrn