IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11171 of 2009 Between: C. Bhushi Reddy, S/o. Late Yella Reddy, Managing Partner, M/s. Navrang Slab Industry, Bethamcherla, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, AP Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. Opp : New Bus Stand, Kurnool. 2 The Divisional Electricial Engineer, Operation, AP Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. Kurnool. 3 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Operation, AP Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. Dhone, Kurnool District. 4 The Asst. Divisional CT Meters, AP Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. Opp : New Bus Stand, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKATA RAMANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:MR.O.MANOHAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: Final assessment order, dated 12.03.2009 passed by respondent No.2 whereby a sum of Rs.60,902.85ps. towards shortfall of electricity charges on account of alleged defect in the meter and a sum of Rs.150/- towards supervision charges are demanded, is questioned in this writ petition mainly on two grounds, namely, 1) no proper opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner and 2) the impugned order is bereft of any reasons whatsoever. After hearing Sri M.Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited and carefully perusing the record, I am of the view that respondent No.2 has dealt with the case in a perfunctory manner. In response to the provisional assessment notice, dated 29.09.2006, the petitioner submitted his objections through his lawyer on 02.08.2007. In the impugned order, though a vague reference is made to the “averments of the consumer”, respondent No.2 has not specifically adverted to the objections raised by the petitioner in the lawyer’s notice sent on his behalf. Apart from this, the impugned order does not contain proper reasons and no reference is made as to whether a notice and an opportunity of personal hearing have been given to the petitioner after receipt of his objections. The law is well settled that before an order adversely affecting the interests of a party is passed, he shall be given a proper opportunity to put forth his case, even if the Regulations specifically do not provide for such a procedure. Since the procedure followed by respondent No.2 does not conform to the settled principles of natural justice, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and order, dated 12.03.2009 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to issue a fresh assessment notice to the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to file his objections before respondent No.2, within a period of three (3) weeks from today. Thereafter, respondent No.2 shall consider the objections filed by the petitioner, give him an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th JUNE, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in one week. kvni