HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.14102 of 2004 Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 Between: M.A. Raheem … Petitioner AND The Chief General Manager (Operation), Hyderabad Zone, APCPDCL, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.14102 of 2004 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to call for the records pertaining to the order, dated 19.07.2004 passed by the first respondent confirming the final assessment order dated 23.09.2003 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act and violative of principles of natural justice. 2) The petitioner is LT-3 consumer. He has an industrial unit. On 24.03.1993 his service connection was inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer and observed that the meter box seal was found tampered, the meter cover seals were also found tampered and the impression on the bits is also different from with other seal bits impression. Subsequently, a provisional assessment was issued directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,34,858/-. Questioning the said assessment, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6459 of 1993 and this Court passed an order directing the respondents to restore the connection on payment of half of the demanded amount in two instalments and accordingly he paid one instalment amount and obtained the reconnection of the unit. The final order was passed after lapse of 10 years without conducting any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, therefore, the it is liable to be set aside. The petitioner after receipt of the provisional notice filed objections and after considering the objections, the second respondent passed the final assessment order on 23.09.2003. 3) The grievance of the petitioner is that the objections raised by him were not considered while passing of the final order. The petitioner contended that the inspection was done on 24.03.1993 in his office. However, in the counter the respondent mentioned that the inspection was done in the presence of one of the representatives of the petitioner. The inspection report also contains the endorsement of that person. The petitioner further contends that there is no proof or evidence to establish that the meter box seal is tampered. But the Inspecting Officer categorically mentioned that the seal buts put to the tampered seals are not belonging with the original seals and the new seals were not put by the authorized person. Therefore, it is a clear indication that the seals are tampered. He further contended that the alleged loss estimated is based on surmises and not based on any facts. But the Inspecting Officer categorically mentioned all the details in the provisional assessment notice, which was also examined by the officer who passed the final assessment order. 4) After going through the entire material, If do not find any illegality and arbitrariness in the impugned order passed by the second respondent and he answered all the objections raised by the petitioner in the order. Therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 15.02.2008 Isn