IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22717 of 2008 Between: P. Siva S/o. P. Satyanarayana Murthy Hindu, R/o. Srinivasa Readymades, Main Road, Koyyalagudem, West Godavari District, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND A.P. Transco, Gopalapuram, Rep. by Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations) Gopalapuram. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent herein i.e, the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations) Gopalapuram to stop all proceedings of disconnection of the electricity supply to the business premises of the petitioner provided under Service Connection bearing No. 141 Cat II and also to set aside the provisional assessment notice declaring it as highly arbitrary capricious and without any basis and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.RAJAGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22717 of 2008 O R D E R : This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a direction to the respondents not to discontinue the power supply to the business premises of the petitioner situated in Koyyalagudem Village and Mandal. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the inspection conducted on 22-01-2007 by ADE/DPE/II, Eluru, having found that the petitioner was indulging in pilferage of electricity, disconnected the power supply and the provisional assessment notice dated 22-01-2007 was issued informing that the petitioner was liable to pay Rs.1,02,638/- and that to obtain reconnection, 50% of the assessed amount should be paid. The petitioner states that accordingly he paid 50% of the said amount and the power supply was restored. However, subsequently the respondents are attempting to disconnect the power supply again without therebeing any justifiable reason. Hence, this writ petition. Heard both sides. It is true that so far as cases relating to theft of energy are concerned, the consumer is liable to deposit the entire amount assessed provisionally and the excess amount, if any, would be refunded by the Board after the liability is determined by the Special Court under Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, the fact that the petitioner is not put on notice as to his liability has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the circumstances, while leaving it open to the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for recovery of the amount allegedly due from the petitioner after giving an opportunity to him to make his representation, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to disconnect the power supply to the premises of the petitioner till such time. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 18-10-2008 KLP