THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26136 of 2010 Date:06.04.2011 Between: Lal Mohd. Khan ..... Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K. Durga Prasad Counsel for Respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy, standing counsel for APCPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the proceedings in Lr.No.ADE/Op/Miralam/D.No:864 dated 24.09.2010 of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, Mir Alam, of respondent No.2 company, whereby he has provisionally assessed the value of the electricity purportedly not recorded by the meter at Rs.3,71,913.94ps, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for A.P.C.P.D.C.L. representing respondent No.2. The petitioner is an industrial consumer of electricity receiving power supply under LT3(A) category. The petitioner’s service was inspected by an Inspecting Officer on 9.07.2010 at 1.20 p.m. and an inspection report was submitted to the effect that the current in B phase was found to be 0.0 amps in meter display, whereas the current in primary was 8.1 amps, that the meter was tested on heaters/Hallogenlamps with accucheck and that error was found to be (-) 32.3% on further inspection by opening CT chamber test block meter terminal cover. It is further stated in the inspection report that meter was recording less energy consumption and hence, short billing was proposed. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to pay 50% of the provisional assessment amount, vide impugned proceedings. The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the said proceedings. While admitting the writ petition, this Court has taken note of the petitioner’s statement that he has already paid Rs.70,000/- towards impugned demand and granted interim direction to restore the power supply subject to the petitioner paying another sum of Rs.70,000/-. At the hearing, it is not disputed that the said amount has already been paid. Thus, accordingly out of the sum of Rs.1,85,957/- demanded towards 50% of the provisional assessment amount, the petitioner has already paid Rs.1,45,000/-. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.4103 of 2011 seeking suspension of letter dated 20.01.2011, wherein the respondents have demanded Rs.11,96,380/- towards CC charges apart from further sum of Rs.14,000/- towards development charges for regularising the additional connected load. As regards the impugned provisional assessment notice, as the petitioner has already paid substantial part of the amount demanded, interests of justice would be met if respondent No.4 is directed to get the petitioner’s civil liability assessed by the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’). With regard to the demand made with respect to which W.P.M.P.No.4103 of 2011 was filed, it is quite apparent that the same was made after filing of the writ petition. As fresh cause of action has arisen to the petitioner, the said proceedings cannot be questioned by way of a miscellaneous application unless the same is questioned by initiating a substantive proceeding. Therefore, no relief in that respect can be granted in this writ petition. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms: (i) Respondent No.4 is directed to get the petitioner’s civil liability determined by the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Act. Till then, the power supply shall not be disconnected on account of non-payment of balance amount towards provisional assessment demanded under the impugned letter dated 24.09.2010. (ii) If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the notice dated 20.01.2011, he shall be free to initiate appropriate proceedings in order to question the same. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.33374 of 2010 and 4103 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.283 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th April, 2011 GHN