IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5141 of 1994 Between: M/s Guru Metal Processing works Plot No.IDA-13,Phase-V, Patancheru, Medak district, rep. by its Partner, Gurudarshan Singh. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Superintending Engineer,Electrical Assessments (Spl.) 4th floor, New buildings Vidyut Soudha, APSEB, Hyderbad. 2.The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Construction and Operation, APSEB, Patancheru, Medak disttrrict. 3.TheSuperintending Engineer, Operation, APSEB, Pantancheru, Medak district. 4.The Chief Engineer,(Electricity) Metropolitan Zone,APSEB,Mint compound, Hyderabad. 5.The APSEB, rep. by its Secretary,Vidyut Souda, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ---RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent in Appeal No.A.15/93 dated Nil confirming the order of the 1st respondent in Order No.SE/A/Spl./Hyd/F. MDK-12/D.No.1301/1993 dated 30-4-1993/12-5-1993 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and void and violative of Principles of Natural Justice if necessary by declaring clauses 39.1.2. 39.9.3 and 39.10 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Priniciples of Natural Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.DUBA VN BABU Counsel for the Respondents.: SMT.M.VINOBHADEVI,STANDING COUNSEL FOR APSEB The Court made the following : ORDER Heard both sides. The petitioner, which is an industry, seeks to assail the impugned action of the 1st respondent herein and as confirmed in the appeal by the 4th respondent in regard to demand made on the assessment. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the inspection made on 19-9- 1992, a provisional assessment notice was served on him on 14-10-1992. On that, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation stating that it is not due to any mistake on his part or any irregularity and as such it cannot be said that there is any pilferage and it is only because of some other lathe machine and the respondents are erroneously trying to make a demand. As against the primary orders demanding Rs.2,59,400/- under a final assessment, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed confirming the said demand without giving proper hearing. Therefore, the petitioner submits that there being no such pilferage, the question of making any demand does not arise. Hence the Writ Petition. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent sought to sustain the impugned orders on the ground that having regard to the finding of fact as arrived at by both the authorities, it cannot be said that there is any discrepancy and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. On considering the submissions made and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the present demands are made in pursuance of the inspection made on 19- 9-1992. In fact it is the case of the petitioner that on earlier occasion when the inspection was made on 12-4-1991, no such irregularity was found, but, on the allegation that there was a pilferage, a provisional assessment was made and the petitioner was asked to pay 50%. Subsequently final assessment was made demanding to pay Rs.2,59,400/-. In the appeal, the same was also confirmed. Having regard to the fact that inspection was made as long back as on 19-9- 1992, it will be a futile exercise to make any fresh hearing or once again to go to into the merits on either side. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of fact as arrived at by both the authorities, especially the primary authority. Having regard to the said act of pilferage, this Court would not go into the merits of the case or to come to a different conclusion for re-appreciation of the same. Accepting the same, it would suffice, in the interest of justice, to reduce the demand to 50% thereof. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders are confirmed, except to the extent that the demand is reduced from Rs.2,59,400/- to Rs.1,29,700/- together with supervision charges at Rs.100/-. It is needless to mention that any amounts paid during all these proceedings, shall be given credit to. No costs. --------------- 25-11-2004. Hsd That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness Hon’ble SriDevinder Gupta, the Chief Justice, on this Thursday, the Twenty Fifth day of November Two Thousand and Four. Asst.Registrar. To 1.The Superintending Engineer,Electrical Assessments (Spl.) 4th floor, New buildings Vidyut Soudha, APSEB, Hyderbad. 2.The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Construction and Operation, APSEB, Patancheru, Medak disttrrict. 3.TheSuperintending Engineer, Operation, APSEB, Pantancheru, Medak district. 4.The Chief Engineer,(Electricity) Metropolitan Zone,APSEB,Mint compound, Hyderabad. 5.The APSEB, rep. by its Secretary,Vidyut Souda, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 6. 2 CD copies.