IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25601 of 2005 Between: M/s.Lakshmi Narasimha Modern Rice Mill, represented by its Managing Partner Mr.K.Lakshminarasaiah, Macha Bollarum, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.Central Power Distribution Company Limited represented by its Chairman & managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief General Manager/Electricity/Operation, Metropolitan Zone, A.P., Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Assessments, A.P.Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Urgu Galli, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation, Electrical, A.P.C.P.D.C.Ltd., Lalbazaar, Secunderabad. 5 The Additional Assistant Engineer, Electrical, A.P.C.P.D.C.Ltd., Bollarum, Secunderabad. 6 The Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Bowenpally, North Circle, Secunderabad. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and quash the order of the 3rd respondent in order No.SEA/Hyd/SBD 377/SAT 6516 dt.31-1-1998 as confirmed by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in letter No.CGM/MZ/HYD/SMRT/SC.No.A-8017/Pil/F.No.78- 05/D.No.335/05 dt.18-10-2005 as the same are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. A.VEERASWAMY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.25601 OF 2005 ORDER : The petitioner herein is engaged in the business of paddy milling. On the allegation that the petitioner indulged in pilferage of energy, proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and the 3rd respondent by order dated 31.1.1998, while recording a finding that the petitioner indulged in pilferage of energy, estimated the value of the loss sustained by the Board at Rs.2,10,197/-. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the 2nd respondent which was dismissed by order dated 18.10.2005 confirming the assessment made by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Though various contentions have been raised on merits, it is primarily contended on behalf of the petitioner that whereas the Appeal was heard on 29.4.2000 by the then Chief General Manager and orders were reserved, the matter was kept pending for more than five years and ultimately the impugned order came to be passed on 18.10.2005 by a different Officer. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said procedure followed by the appellate authority was in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore on that ground alone the order of the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. It is also relevant to note that during the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner paid the entire assessed amount subject to result of this writ petition. Heard both sides. A perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 18.10.2005 itself shows that the arguments in the Appeal were concluded on 29.04.2000 and the orders were reserved. Admittedly, there after there was a change in the office of the appellate authority and a new incumbent, who did not hear the matter, passed the impugned order after a lapse of five years. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the interests of justice would be met if a fresh order is passed by the Appellate Authority after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.2.2009 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the Appeal of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is also made clear that the amount paid by the petitioner in compliance with the assessment order of the 3rd respondent during pendency of this Writ Petition shall be subject to the order that may be passed by the 2nd respondent. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 17.02.2009 gbs