THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.10313 of 2004 Dated:21st June, 2010 Between: Gurupal Singh ….Petitioner and 1. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. (A.P. TRANSCO), rep. by its Chief Managing Director, Hyderabad & Ors. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.10313 of 2004 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Gurupal Singh with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of the Chief General Manager, Operation, APCPDCL, Hyderabad-3rd respondent and set aside the order vide proceedings No.CGM/OP/CPDCL/DE- II/F.251(VI)/856, dated 05.06.2004, in connection with pilferage charges leveled against the petitioner having Service Connection No.705-4469, Plot No.4, M/s.Hyderabad Industries, Nacharam, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The petitioner is the allottee of individual plot for setting up a small scale industry. He also secured L.T. Category III electricity supply from the respondents-Corporation with Service Connection No.705-4469. He sub-leased the premises to one Mr.T.Mahmood. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Electrical/ Operation, Habsiguda, Hyderabad-4th respondent inspected the premises and noticed that T.Mahamood resorted to pilferage the energy vide his report Lr.No.ADE/O/HBG/F 237/N/D.No.483/2K, dated 28.09.2000. The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Electrical/Operation, Hydeabad-4th respondent initially assessed the value of the energy pilferaged as Rs.2,05,533/-. Aggrieved by the assessment, the petitioner filed an appeal petition before the Superintending Engineer (Assessments)/APCPDCL, A.P. State Housing Corporation Building, Hyderabad-2nd respondent. The appellate authority reduced the initial assessment to Rs.77,705/-The sub-lessee paid Rs.35,000/- as compounding fee vide Challan No.032791, dated 19.07.2003. Assailing the order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 23.06.2003. An interim order came to be passed on the even date directing the 2nd respondent to restore power supply to the S.C.No.705-4469 on payment of 50 per cent of the finally assessed amount due from the petitioner. 4. The respondents filed counter-affidavit. The circumstances under which revised assessment came to be passed have been detailed in the counter-affidavit. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the premises was in occupation of the sub-lessee as on the date of the inspection of the premises by the 4th respondent and if any pilferage the sub-lessee resorted, it is the sub-lessee, who is liable to pay the money. 7. I do not see any substance in his contention, since the petitioner is the person, who obtained Service Connection from the respondents. Such is the situation, the petitioner cannot avoid the liability of Rs.77,705/- as assessed by the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner paid half of the finally assessed amount. The petitioner has to pay the left over amount within six weeks from today. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay the left over 50% of the finally assessed amount within six weeks from today. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:21st June, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.10313 of 2004 Dated:21st June, 2010