THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.8706 OF 2004 DATED: 29.01.2010 Between: Mummidi Ganesh .. Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer, Assessments, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the orders dated 18.03.2004 passed by the 1st respondent- Superintending Engineer, Assessments, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Visakhapatnam, confirming the orders dated 22.12.2003 passed by the 2nd respondent- Divisional Engineer, Assessments, Rajahmundry, calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,16,567/- towards the loss sustained by the A.P.E.P.D.C.L. on account of pilferage of electric energy by the petitioner. The petitioner has been availing power supply under Service Connection No.5611 Category II for his premises at Kakinada Town of East Godavari District. The 3rd respondent- Assistant Divisional Engineer, Lines, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Samalkot, who inspected the said premises on 18.10.2003 and noticed certain incriminating points indicating that the petitioner was pilfering energy, disconnected power supply to the said premises of the petitioner. Thereafter, the 4th respondent- Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Town Kakinada, issued provisional assessment notice dated 23.10.2003 to the petitioner, estimating the value of the pilfered energy at Rs.2,12,109/-, and the petitioner was asked to pay half of the said amount, if he is desirous to avail restoration of power supply, and was also intimated about the provision for compounding the offence. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner is stated to have paid half of the demanded amount. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent-Divisional Engineer issued show-cause notice dated 10.11.2003, indicating the loss sustained by the A.P.E.P.D.C.L., on account of pilferage of electric energy by the petitioner, at Rs.2,16,567/- and asked the petitioner to make a representation, if he has any objections in that regard, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice. No representation was stated to have been submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the said show cause notice and the 2nd respondent passed order dated 22.12.2003, calling upon the petitioner to pay the said amount of Rs.2,16,567/-, deducting the amount if any already paid, within thirty days of receipt of the said order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent- Superintending Engineer, who passed orders on 18.03.2004, confirming the orders dated 22.12.2003 passed by the 2nd respondent. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, contending that though he submitted representation to the 2nd respondent, pursuant to the show cause notice dated 10.11.2003 which was received by him on 21.11.2003, the same was not considered on the ground that it was submitted with a delay of one day, and that the Divisional Engineer, who passed the orders dated 22.12.2003, was later promoted as Superintending Engineer and he, as the appellate authority, passed the orders dated 18.03.2004, confirming the orders dated 22.12.2003 passed by him as Divisional Engineer. The petitioner also alleges that the orders dated 18.03.2004 were passed without issuing him any notice and without providing him an opportunity of hearing. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The facts that the same Officer, who passed the orders dated 22.12.2003 as Divisional Engineer, passed the appellate order dated 18.03.2004, as the Superintending Engineer; that the representation filed by the petitioner was not considered by the 2nd respondent- Divisional Engineer, on the ground that the same was filed with a delay of one day; and that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the orders dated 22.12.2003 and 18.03.2004, are not denied by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the orders dated 22.12.2003 and 18.03.2004 were passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and, on this ground alone, the said orders deserve to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders of both the authorities are set aside. However, this will not preclude the competent authority from taking appropriate steps and passing appropriate orders as per law, if necessary, after putting the petitioner on notice and providing him an opportunity of hearing. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 29th January, 2010. IBL