HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION No.8841 of 1996 ORAL ORDER: In this petition, the petitioner assails the enquiry proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent in pursuance of show cause notice dated 8.7.1994. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, who is an L.T. consumer is engaged in the business of manufacture of ice and aerated water. While so, on 7.1.1994, the third respondent visited the petitioner’s premises and observed that the seals and wires of the meter box were loose. He removed the same stating that they are required to be tested. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a notice stating that the petitioner had pilfered the energy to an extent of Rs. 2,59,565 and on that ground, the service connection was disconnected. Challenging the provisional assessment, it earlier filed Writ Petition No. 740 of 1994 before this Court and while admitting the above writ petition on 25.1.1994 this Court granted interim order directing the respondents to restore power supply subject to the condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. The petitioner complied with the said order and the power connection was restored. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent again issued another show cause notice on 7.7.1994 provisionally assessing the value of the pilfered energy at Rs.3,87,970/-. The petitioner submitted its explanation to the show cause notice requesting the authorities to permit him to cross-examine the inspecting officers and his squad members, who conducted inspection to the petitioner’s premises. When no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the inspecting officials did not inform the petitioner about the condition of the meter except stating that the wires of the meter are loose, the authorities are not justified in issuing the impugned proceedings on the ground of pilferage of energy. He, therefore, requested that the petitioner may be allowed to cross-examine the concerned inspecting officers and the squad members as witnesses in the final proceedings. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF A.P. LTD. Vs. SRI RAMAKRISHNA RICE MILL & Others[1]. He also brought to my notice of the judgment of a learned single judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 18225 of 1994 and batch, dated 14.11.1994, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court in an identical case, has allowed the writ petitions and permitted the petitioners therein to summon all such witnesses whose evidence is relevant for adjudication of the matter before the Superintending Engineer concerned in terms of Condition No. 39.9.2 of the terms and conditions of supply. The learned single judge further directed the Superintending Engineer concerned to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Since in the instant case also, the petitioner has not been given an opportunity before determining the alleged amount of pilferage, the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents ought to have conducted comprehensive enquiry before determining the pilferage amount and ought to have afforded reasonable opportunity to it to substantiate its case. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to conduct enquiry into the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the respondents to cross-examine the inspecting officials, who inspected the premises of the petitioner on 7.1.1994. No costs. _____________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,ACJ Date: 25th November, 2010 pnb [1] 2006(3) SCC 74