THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DR.G.YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.19 of 2003 31-01-2008 Between: Sri Laxmi Modern Rice Mill, Gopalraopet, Rep.by its Prop.E.Prabhakar Reddy …. Petitioner And 1. The Assistant Accounts Officer, E.R.O., Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited,Peddapally And another …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DR.G.YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.19 of 2003 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the proceedings of the second respondent dated 05.8.2002 directing to pay a sum of Rs.25,864/- towards the estimated energy charges as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents not to disconnect the power supply to the industry pending disposal of the writ petition. 2. The petitioner pleaded that he was given service connection to his rice mill for the supply of electricity. He has been paying periodical electric consumption charges without any dispute. While so, on 04.1.1997, the AE, Karimnagar Unit inspected the rice mill on 03.4.1997 and obtained the signature of the petitioner. On a report, the SC/ Operation Circle issued a show cause notice dated 20.5.1997 asking the petitioner to give explanation within 15 days as to why Rs.25,864/- being the loss sustained by the Board cannot be collected from him. The petitioner submitted an explanation that there is no fault on his part and as he was periodically paying the bills he is not liable to pay any more amount. 3. The respondent filed a detailed counter mentioning that on account of the wrong connection, two phases were working and the third phase was not working. Therefore, the consumption charges that were paid are only in respect of 2/3rd consumption and billing could not be done for 1/3rd of the consumption on account of the wrong connection. 4. The respondents by taking into consideration, the meter reading arrived at the total units consumed by the petitioner and as one phase was not working, they added 1/3rd of the units recorded by the meter and the amount was worked out on the basis of that reading. 5. After going through the record, I am of the view that though the petitioner did not indulge in any pilferage of energy, but the Government estimated the loss on account of the wrong connection as the current availed by the petitioner could not be recorded in one phase out of the three phases. The impugned order was passed by the SC, Operations. The petitioner contended that under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity Inspector is competent to pass the impugned order, but not the SE. Therefore, the order cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the respondents drew the attention of the court, to the judgment in DURGA RICE MILL, VENKATAPURAM v A.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS[1], wherein it was held: “The meter in question had no fault or defect and was capable of recording the consumption of electrical energy correctly. It was only the wrong wiring or wrong connections for the first phase that resulted in the meter rotating in reverse for the first phase and rotating forward for phases 2 and 3. Such incorrect recording of consumption due to wrong wiring or wrong connections is outside the scope of Section 26(6) of the Act. There was nothing irregular or illegal in the manner of making the impugned demand by the defendants. The assessment of the quantum was also on a reasonable and explicable basis. The plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to any relief and the judgment and decree of the trial Court cannot be interfered with. However, as this was not a case of malpractice or fraud by the plaintiff, the parties can be directed to bear their own costs in this appeal like in the suit.” Therefore, the respondent was justified in adding 1/3rd of the amount towards consumption charges and the same is not illegal and the order needs no interference. In view of the above legal decision, there is no force in contention of the petitioner that the SC has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. 6. In the light of the above finding, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G.YETHIRAJULU,J 31st January, 2008 PNV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DR.G.YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.19 of 2003 31-01-2008 [1] 2006(6) ALD 398