HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12293 of 2002 Date : 02.11.2009 Between : M. Rama Lingeswara Rao. …..Petitioner And The Superintendent Engineer (Assessment), Southern Power Distribution Co. (SPDC) of A.P. Ltd., Tirupathi & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12293 of 2002 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the order of the appellate authority i.e. the Superintending Engineer (Assessments), Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. (APSPDCL), Tirupathi. By the aforesaid order, the appellate authority has modified the order of the assessing authority with regard to assessment of loss of energy suffered by the Company due to the alleged pilferage committed by the petitioner- consumer. Though the primary authority has assessed the loss at Rs.30,672/-, the appellate authority, by impugned order, has reduced it to Rs.16,777/-. 2. The father of the petitioner has obtained electricity service connection bearing No.51400/12230 from APSPDCL, as per the terms and conditions of supply. On 05.09.1994, when the said service connection was inspected by the inspecting officials, it was noticed that there was no meter terminal cover seal, and that the switch control was provided in the neutral circuit. As such, alleging that the petitioner has pilfered the energy, the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation), Vijayawada, has provisionally assessed the loss of energy at Rs.30,421-10 paise. In continuation of the provisional assessment, the Divisional Engineer (Assessments), Vijayawada has conducted the inquiry, and after hearing the objections of the petitioner, he has quantified the loss of energy pilfered to be Rs.20,435/-, vide his orders dated 17.11.2000, issued in Proceedings No.476/DE/A/VJA/D.No. 1445. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Superintending Engineer (Assessments), Tirupathi, who, by impugned order dated 29.09.2001, issued in Proceedings No.SE/A/TPT/FAG/D.VJA(T)/P.No.453/D.No.459/01, reduced the value of energy pilfered, from Rs.20,435/- to 16,777/-, in addition to Rs.150/- towards supervision charges and Rs.20/- for re-connection charges. 3. In this writ petition, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is that since the service connection was obtained by the father of the petitioner, no proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner to realize the impugned demand. 4. Even according to the petitioner, he is the son of the consumer and is continuing the same service connection after the death of his father. While getting the benefit of service connection obtained by his late father, the petitioner cannot disown the liability of loss of energy caused through the said service connection, due to pilferage. Though it is submitted that no inquiry is conducted, but pursuant to the inspection made by the inspecting officials and after making provisional assessment, a regular inquiry was conducted by the Divisional Engineer by giving opportunity to the petitioner, and only after considering the objections raised by the petitioner, the assessing authority has passed final orders, and even the appellate authority, after looking into the matter, has modified the quantum of loss on account of pilferage. As the procedure as contemplated in the terms and conditions of supply has been followed in assessing the loss, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the respondents, so as to interfere with the same. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. As it is stated that Rs.5,000/- is already deposited by the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings, he is granted two months time from today, for payment of the balance amount. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd November 2009 ajr