HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10518 of 2004 Date : 18.12.2009 Between : M/s.Abhishek Flour Mills, Mylaradevpalli, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Managing Director. …..Petitioner And A.P.C.P.D.C.L, rep. by its Chief General Manager (Operations), Red Hills, Hyderabad. …..Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10518 of 2004 ORDER : The petitioner, which is an industry, has obtained electric service connection vide S.C.No.1149 at Mylardevpalli, under Category-III, to run the flour mill. When the said service connection of the petitioner was inspected on 30.04.2001, the inspecting officer noticed pilferage of energy by the petitioner by tampering with the metre box seals. On the aforesaid allegation of pilferage, the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations) of APCPDCL, Gaganpahad, has provisionally assessed the loss of energy on account of pilferage by the petitioner and issued proceedings, dated 17.04.2001, in letter No.ADE/O/GPHD/D.No.54, assessing the loss of energy at Rs.4,90,890/-, and demanded for payment of Rs.2,45,445/- for restoration of supply during the pendency of assessment proceedings. It is stated that pursuant to the provisional assessment order, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.2,45,445/- and the power supply was restored. 2. In response to the provisional assessment orders, the petitioner has filed his detailed objections before the Superintending Engineer (Assessments), Hyderabad. The provisional assessing authority assessed the loss of energy for the entire load for 8 hours a day for 25 days in a month. However, it was the case of the petitioner that he was not operating the mill for 8 hours a day, and therefore, objected the action of respondents in assessing the loss of energy by computing 8 hours a day for 25 days in a month. The Superintending Engineer (Assessments), considering the objections raised by the petitioner, and by taking into account the nature of product for which the petitioner was using his mill and the hours of supply in the area, and also taking into consideration the fact that the service connection of petitioner is on a rural feader, revised the assessment with 6 ½ hours per day for 25 days in a month for one year and issued the final assessment proceedings, dated 08.08.2003, quantifying the loss of energy at Rs.2,94,230/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner carried the matter further, before the Chief General Manager of APCPDCL. The appellate authority, by order, dated 11.05.2004, issued in Proceedings No.CGM/OP/CPDCL/DE-II/F.251 (VII)/537, confirmed the final assessment orders, dated 08.08.2003, passed by the Superintending Engineer. 3. In this writ petition, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is that since the petitioner is only operating the flour mill, which is seasonal in nature, the respondents ought to have taken only 4 hours a day but not 6 ½ hours as assessed by the appellate authority. 4. The said plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted, for the reason that the petitioner has availed the electricity service by entering into an agreement with the respondent- Company. For the purpose of supply, Terms and Conditions of Supply form part of the agreement. Under Clause 39.7.4 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, respondents have notified the diversity factor, load factor and number of working hours per day, to be taken into consideration for various categories of supplies on account of loss of energy in cases of pilferage. As per Condition No.39.7.3.2, with regard to industrial category, the number of working hours per day are notified at 8, 16 and 24, depending upon the number of shifts. As per the said condition, for industrial consumers, the minimum of 8 hours per day are notified for the purpose of assessing the loss of energy. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner that respondents should have assessed the loss of energy by taking into account only 4 hours per day. In any event, when the order passed by the assessing authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority, has become final, the petitioner cannot seek revision of the value of the energy pilfered, without even questioning the said orders. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition for grant of relief as prayed for. As much as it is stated that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.2,45,455/-, he is granted three months time from today, for payment of the balance amount. No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, for a period of three months, to recover the said amount. 6. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th December 2009 ajr