IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3374 of 2003 Between: Barath Sanchar Nigam Limited Rep by its General Manager Telecom (A Government of India Enterfprise) District, Mahabubnagar-509 050 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assst. Divisional Engineer (Elec) Operation Sub Division, APCPDCL Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar-509 001 2 Asst. Divisional Engineeer (Elec) Operations Sub Division, APCPDCL Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar-509 001 3 Superintending Engineer (Elec) Operation APCPDCL, Mettugada Mahabubnagar-509 001 4 Chief General Manager, APCPDCL., Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar Zone Mahabubnagar-509 001 5 Chief Managing Director, APCPDCL Vidyut Soudha, Somaji Guda, Hyderabad-500 004 .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus and to declare the demand notice No. ADE/OPN/MBNR/F.No. 1644, dated 20-12-2001 issued by Respondet No.2 and the order No. SE/OP/MBNR/Commerical-II /D. No. 3047, dated 21-12-2002 of the Respodnent No.3 as illegal, null and void and ultra vires the provisions of Section 26(6) of the India electricity Act 11910 and issue consequential directions restraining the respodnents herein from taking any coerive action Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WP.NO.3374 OF 2003 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through its General Manager, Mahabubnagar district challenging the validity of the order dated 21.12.2002 passed in Orders No.SE/OP/MBNR/Commercial-II/D.No.3047 by the Superintendent Engineer (Operation), Mahabubnagar. The petitioner-Telephone Exchange was availing the electricity power supply from the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board vide Service Connection No.MBN 503 under H.T. Category-I. The supply is governed by the terms and conditions of supply framed under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The Service Connection of the petitioner exchange was inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer on 20.09.2001 and on the ground that during such inspection, having noticed the current transformer and potential transformer are defective, assessment proceedings have been initiated to arrive to arrive at the loss of energy on account of such defect. The petitioner filed his objections, but however, the impugned orders are passed demanding an amount of Rs.17,98,543.90 ps towards the cost of the back billing. When the Power supply was sought to be disconnected, the petitioner company, the Government of India enterprises did not pay the amount arrived at under the impugned order and chose to file this writ petition and this court granted the interim orders to maintain status quo and the supply is being continued in view of the interim orders passed by this court. In the writ petition, it is a case of the petitioner that the assessment proceedings on the allegations of the defective meter are not in accordance with the provisions under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. It is a case of the petitioner that even assuming that the Current Transformer and Potential Transformer which is called as CTPT are also defective, there is no jurisdiction for the respondents to back bill for the entire period from March, 1996 to 16.10.2001. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, appearing for the respondent company, that as against the orders of the Superintendent Engineer, there is an appeal provided to the Zonal Chief Engineer under the condition No.22.3.3.4 and as such this Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that as it was noticed that the equipment which is dealt with C.T.P.T, was defective from its inception i.e., from March, 1996 up to 16.10.2001 and as such the respondents have assessed the back billing period from March, 1996 to 16.10.2001. The service connection provided to the petitioner is governed by the conditions under terms and conditions of supply framed under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 in B.P.M.S No.690 dated 17.9.1975 and the amendments made to such conditions. Under the conditions No.22.3.3.3, there is procedure for arriving at the consumption when the meter is defective and the Superintendent Engineer is a competent authority for the purpose of assessment of loss of energy. Under condition No.22.3.3.4, there is a remedy of appeal to the Zonal Chief Engineer against the orders passed by the Superintendent Engineer. Though it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that maximum period is only six months for the purpose of back billing, in cases of the defective meter, but at the same time, there is no reason for the petitioner consumer to approach this court bypassing the remedy of appeal, which is provided to the consumer under condition No.22.3.3.4. As much as some technical aspects are involved, it is more desirable in cases of this nature for the consumers to avail the remedy of appeal, if there are any defects in the orders passed by the Superintendent Engineer. At the same time a reading of the provisions under Section 26.6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, it is clear that in cases of defective meters, under Section 26.6 of the Act, the loss of energy can be estimated only for a maximum period of six months. Having regard to such provision where an assessment can be made for the reasons beyond six months, in cases where Current Transformer and Potential Transformer are defective from which voltage passes to the meter. Taking into account that the petitioner is a Government of India Enterprise and even in case of defective meters, the maximum period is only for six months, it is a fit case to allow the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, which is provided under condition No.23.3.3.4 to the Zonal Chief Manager as per the terms and conditions of supply of Electricity Act, 1948. For the aforesaid reasons, I dispose of the Writ petition permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellant authority as per condition No.22.3.3.4 within a period of two months from today by depositing an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with the Superintendent Engineer, Electrical Operations, A.P.C.P.D.C.L, Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar and on such filing of the appeal on deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-, as aforesaid, the appellate authority is directed to entertain the appeal without insisting for any deposit of further amount and consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible from the date of filing of the appeal. Till the disposal of the appeal, no further steps shall be taken to recover any further amounts pursuant to the orders dated 21.12.2002 passed in Orders No.SE/OP/MBNR/Commercial-II/D.No.3047 by the Superintendent Engineer (Operation). It is made clear that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to be deposited in pursuant to the orders of this court will be subject to the outcome of final order to be passed by the appellate authority. It is also made clear that if no appeal is filed within a period referred to above, it is open to the respondents to take steps to enforce the orders dated 21.12.2002 passed in the Order No.SE/OP/MBNR/Commercial-II/D.No.3047 by the Superintendent Engineer (Operation). Subject to above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Date:02.06.2009. GK/SKMR HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WP.NO.3374 OF 2003 DATE:02.06.2009.