HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3805 of 2004 Date : 03.11.2009 Between : Mr. Shahnawaz & another. …..Petitioners And The Superintending Engineer, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Hyderabad & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3805 of 2004 ORDER : This writ petition is filed against the final assessment orders issued by the 2nd respondent-Divisional Engineer (Assessments-I), Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company, Hyderabad, dated 24.09.2003, passed in Proceedings No.DE/A-I/HYD/DAT 17285 D.No.3673, as confirmed by the order of the appellate authority, dated 31st December 2003, issued in Letter No.SEA/HYD/SAP.NO:2338/D.NO:1896. 2. Petitioners are the owners of the premises bearing No. 19-3-1090, situated at Jahanuma, Falaknuma, Hyderabad. They have obtained electricity Service Connection bearing No.DT, L.T. Category-II for supply of electricity to the above said premises. The said service connection was inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations), on 02.10.2000. During the inspection, it was found that the petitioners were using the electricity by directly tapping from the LT overhead line from two different poles, for the purpose of running the borewells and halogen lamps in their premises. On the aforesaid ground, alleging that the petitioners were involved in pilferage of energy, initially, a demand was made by making provisional assessment of loss of energy at Rs.10,45,330/-. During the pendency of the final assessment proceedings, petitioners have approached this Court by filing writ petition No.23911 of 2000, seeking directions for restoration of electricity supply to their Service Connection. In the aforesaid writ petition, taking into account the fact that the petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, directions were issued to finalise the assessment proceedings. 3. Earlier, when the show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, they have filed a detailed explanation stating that they have purchased the property from its earlier owners by way of registered sale deeds, dated 07.08.2000 and 08.08.2000, and the said sales were not preceded by any agreements of sale, and that they were inducted into possession only on the date of sale deeds. It is their case before the assessing authority that as they have given certain works on contract to a contractor, and the said contractor has used the electricity by illegally tapping it from the LT overhead line from two different poles. Precisely, it was their case that as they have purchased the premises only in the month of August 2000 and the power supply was utilised only for a period of 49 days prior to the date of inspection, no assessment can be made for a period of one year, as assessed in the provisional assessment proceedings. The primary authority i.e. the Divisional Engineer, while considering the objections raised by the petitioners in their explanation to the show cause notice, by recording a finding that the works of renovation in the premises could not have been completed within a period of 49 days, has assessed the loss of energy by taking the period of five months and the loss of energy was arrived at Rs.4,05,094/-. As against the said order, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, as per Condition No.22.3.3.4 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, framed under B.P.Ms.No.690, dated 17.09.1975. The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by recording a finding that the assessing officer has already taken into consideration all the aspects, while passing the final assessment order. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Heard Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. In this writ petition, it is mainly contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that inspite of valid objections raised by the petitioners in their explanation to the show cause notice, without recording any reasons on such objections, the impugned order is passed, demanding an amount of Rs.4,05,094/- towards loss of energy on account of pilferage. It is further stated that as much as the purchase of property was made pursuant to the registered sale deeds dated 07.08.2000 and 08.08.2000, the electricity was used only for a period of 49 days prior to the date of inspection. The assessing authority, inspite of valid material produced before him, by recording his findings contrary to the material on record, has passed the final orders. It is further submitted that in any event, though there is a right of appeal provided as per the terms and conditions of supply, the appellate authority did not consider the appeal in proper perspective and merely rejected the appeal without recording valid reasons. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioners are using the power for developing the premises as a Function Hall, and for that purpose, the power was tapped directly from the LT overhead line through two different poles for the borewells and also for the halogen lamps. It is submitted that having regard to the developments made in the premises, by considering the objections raised by the petitioners, the assessing authority has determined the period of assessment to be for five months, and the appellate authority also, on considering the matter, dismissed the appeal, and as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the said orders at this stage. 7. I have gone through the orders passed by the primary authority as well as the appellate authority. Though certain reasons were recorded by the assessing authority for determining the period of pilferage as five months, but when specific grounds are raised by the petitioners in the appeal filed by them as provided in the Terms and Conditions of Supply, the appellate authority ought to have considered such grounds, while passing the final orders. The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal by merely recording a finding that the Assessing Officer has already taken all aspects into consideration. When an appeal is provided to the appellate authority as per the Terms and Conditions of Supply, such authority is expected to look into the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioners and it cannot summarily reject the appeal by merely recording a finding that the Assessing Officer has already taken all aspects into consideration. Such approach of the appellate authority cannot be accepted. When the Terms and Conditions of Supply framed in exercise of powers under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 provide for appeal, such appellate authority is expected at least to look into the grounds raised by the petitioners and to decide the appeal. Having regard to the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioners, without going into the issues raised in this writ petition, I deem it as a fit case to remand the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. Further, it is to be noticed that pursuant to the provisional assessment orders, the petitioners have already deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, but ultimately, the final assessment orders are passed confining the demand only to an amount of Rs.4,05,094/-, in that view of the matter, and for the reasons referred above, I set aside the order of the appellate authority dated 31st December 2003 and remand the matter for fresh consideration of appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 24.09.2003, passed by the Divisional Engineer-I (Assessments), APCPDCL, Hydeabad, with a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the amount deposited by the petitioners shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the appellate authority pursuant to these orders. 8. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd November 2009 ajr