The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.26244 of 2009 Dated 21st July, 2010 Between: G.Atchuta Rao …Petitioner And The Chief General Manager, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao Counsel for the respondents: Mr.S.V.Ramana for Mr.O.Manohar Reddy, SC for A.P.Transco. The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside letter No.ADE/O/Salur/F Docket (Court Case)/D.No.973/2009, dated 01-11-2009, issued by respondent No.3. The petitioner is a consumer of electricity supplied by the respondents. On the basis of an inspection conducted by respondent No.3, a provisional assessment notice was issued to the petitioner on 09-03-2005 for a sum of Rs.1,65,283/- and demanding payment of 50% thereof for obtaining restoration of power supply. The petitioner filed WP.No.6775 of 2007 questioning the said notice. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 03-04-2007, directing the respondents to take steps for making final assessment and to restore the power supply on the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the said sum and got the power supply restored. While so, respondent No.2 made a final assessment of the alleged loss of electricity on account of pilferage by his order, dated 28-11-2005. On the ground that the amount under the said assessment order was not paid, respondent No.3 vide his letter, dated 01-11-2009, called upon the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.1,65,283/- under the said final assessment order. At the hearing, Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised the contention that the impugned letter is based on the final assessment order, dated 28-11-2005, and that the said final assessment order was unenforceable as respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction to make such an assessment under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act”). Under Section 126 of the Act, the licensee is entitled to make a provisional assessment of the loss suffered on account of illegal abstraction of electricity. Under Section 154 (5) of the Act, the Special Court is empowered to determine the civil liability of the consumers arising on account of theft of energy. It is fairly conceded by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, that under the scheme of the Act, the licensee or its Officers are not vested with the specific power to make a final determination of the civil liability of the consumers and that their power is confined only to making provisional assessments. Inasmuch as it is only the special Court, which is vested with the power and jurisdiction to determine the civil liability of the consumers finally, the impugned notice, based on the purported final assessment made by respondent No.2, is unenforceable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned letter, dated 01-11-2009, issued by respondent No.3, is set aside. Liberty is however given to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings for determination of the civil liability of the petitioner by the jurisdictional special Court. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st July, 2010 lur