IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23556 of 2005 Between: Sri B. Hanumath Reddy, W/o. Sri Dhan Reddy, R/o. Adibatla Village, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., (AP TRANSCO) having office at Singreni Bhavan, Hyderabad, Rep by its Managing Director. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Assessment, APCPDCL., Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the order dated 30-9-2005 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Electricity Act, 2003 and further direct the 2nd respondent to pass the final assessment order by following the procedure laid down in section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.SURYA SATISH Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this Writ Petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order, dated 30-09-2005, passed in letter No.SEA/HYD/SAP No.5177/D.No.1774/2005 by the second respondent - Superintending Engineer, the Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited. The petitioner was availing supply of domestic electricity service by service connection No.3101-349 under L.T. Category-II at Adibatla Village, Ibrahimpatnam of Ranga Reddy District. The said service connection is governed by the provisions under the terms and conditions of supply notified by the respondent company in exercise of power under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The service of the petitioner was inspected by the Assistant Engineer/DPE-II, Ranga Reddy District, on 07-10-2004 and noticed that there were no connections to the meter and he has found that electricity was directly tapped from the nearby line by means of PVC insulated wires, which were connected to the load directly. Thus, alleging that the consumer has pilferaged the energy, a case was registered and assessment proceedings were initiated for the purpose of back billing. By issuing Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and inviting objections, the Primary Authority i.e., Divisional Engineer, passed orders, dated 27-04-2005, in order No.DEA/I/HYD/DAT 16069 D.No.545, assessing the loss of energy on the allegation made against the petitioner at Rs.66,839/- together with Rs.150/- towards supervision charges. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner/Consumer has filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, as per the terms and conditions of supply. The appellate authority by the impugned order, dated 30-09-2005, issued in letter No.SEA/HYD/SAP No.5177/D.No.1774/2005 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The only ground argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provision under Section 126(5) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, respondents are empowered to back bill only for a period of three months so far as domestic and agricultural connections are concerned, but in the impugned order back billing is assessed for a period of twelve months, which is illegal and arbitrary. That the contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that the supply of energy for the petitioner is governed by the statutory terms and conditions framed under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Under the terms and conditions notified by the respondent company, theft of energy is separately governed under condition No.10.3.3 of the conditions, which empowers the respondents to assess the loss for a period of 12 months preceding the date of inspection. In that view of the matter, the only contention of the learned counsel that the loss has to be assessed only for a period of three months as contemplated under Section 126(5) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, cannot be accepted. As no other ground is urged, I do not find any illegality in the order of the Appellate Authority. In any event, it is also to be noticed that the petitioner has not even questioned the order of the Primary Authority in the Writ Petition. Thus, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in the Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. At the stage of admission, this Court, by order, dated 02-11-2005, granted interim stay on a condition of petitioner depositing Rs.50,000/- within a period of one week from the date of the order. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is granted six weeks time from today for payment of the balance amount. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 20th July, 2009. skmr