IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15555 of 2002 Between: M/s.Bhupathi Industries ..... PETITIONER AND Chief Engineer, Operation, NPDCL, Warangal and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. P.KESHAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondents:MR. ANIL KUMAR FOR MR. O.MANOHAR REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is a consumer of the Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, Warangal, having LT III category service connection. It’s service connection was inspected by the Divisional Engineer (Electrical), DPE, Warangal on 10.07.1997 and on the basis of the said inspection, the meter was sent for testing to the MRT Laboratory. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.37,389/- towards value of the electricity shortfall in the consumption for the period from February, 1997 to April, 1997. The petitioner submitted its explanation to the said show cause notice. After considering the said explanation, respondent No.2 passed order, dated 09.07.2001 assessing the value of the electricity shortfall recorded by the meter, at Rs.40,336/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1, who dismissed the same by his order, dated 29.05.2002. These two orders have been questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition. Sri P.Keshava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Inspecting Officer is the appellate authority, who disposed of the appeal, and that as he already had a pre-conceived mind, he should not have heard the appeal and decided the same. The learned counsel also submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not made proper assessment of the alleged electricity shortfall in the consumption. Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no legal bar on the Inspecting Officer for deciding the appeal. He further submitted that the assessment was made strictly following the procedure prescribed by Condition Nos.7 and 8 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply framed by the Central Power Distribution Company Limited, Andhra Pradesh, which is adopted by respondent No.1 Corporation. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. As regards the first contention, the fact that the appellate authority was the Inspecting Officer at the time of inspection is not disputed. The petitioner has not pleaded in the affidavit that it raised any objection for the appellate authority hearing the appeal. The petitioner took its chance before the appellate authority without any demur and, therefore, it cannot turn round and object to his hearing the appeal. Admittedly, there is no bar under the terms and conditions governing the parties, on the Inspecting Officer being a part of adjudicatory process. It is required to be noted that while the Inspecting Officer had inspected the premises and submitted a report, the superior authority namely, Superintending Engineer, made the final assessment. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Inspecting Officer has taken part in the decision making process of the primary authority, namely, Superintending Engineer. Therefore, I do not find any legal impediment for the Inspecting Officer, who in course of time became the Chief Engineer and consequently, the appellate authority to hear the appeal. Far from there being any such impediment, it would perhaps be more advantageous, if the Inspecting Officer himself happens to be the appellate authority, because he will be in a better position to consider the objections filed by the consumer regarding various technical issues including the method of assessment. In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. With regard to the second contention, the terms and conditions governing the parties provide for elaborate procedure for assessing the shortfall units on account of defect in the meter. Though the petitioner raised certain aspects regarding the period which is required to be taken into consideration, the same was considered by both the primary and the appellate authorities and gave cogent reasons for adopting the period from February, 1997 to April, 1997 as the period, during which, the meter was allegedly defective. In the absence of any serious error committed by the respondents in following the procedure, there is no warrant for this Court to interfere with the assessment made by them, while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It may however, be noticed that while the show cause notice was issued for a sum of Rs.37,389/-, final assessment was made for Rs.40,336/-. It is not the case of the respondents that a revised show cause notice was issued for Rs.40,336/-. Even if in the final assessment made by the respondents, the value of the electricity shortfall recorded by the meter is Rs.40,336/-, in the absence of a revised show cause notice, they cannot demand and collect more than Rs.37,389/-, for which, the show cause notice was issued. Therefore, order, dated 09.07.2001 passed by respondent No.2 stands modified by substituting the amount of Rs.37,389/- in place of Rs.40,336.60 ps. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner paid Rs.20,168/-. The petitioner is granted eight (8) weeks’ time to pay the balance outstanding amount as indicated above. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni