HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.562 of 2003 Date : 02.11.2009 Between : P.N.N.Appa Rao. …..Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer, Assessments Circle, A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Visakhapatnam & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.562 of 2003 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, challenging the order dated 30.06.1999, passed by the 2nd respondent-Divisional Engineer, Assessments Division, A.P.TRANSCO, Visakhapatnam, and the order of the appellate authority i.e. the 1st respondent-Superintending Engineer in Proceedings No.SAP.1238/VSP/D.AKP/AKP/A/F.182/ D.No.689, dated 07.10.2002. 2. Petitioner is availing electricity service connection from the respondent-A.P.TRANSCO, vide Service Connection No.13507 under Category-II, for the purpose of running his welding workshop at Anakapalle. The said service connection was inspected by the 3rd respondent-Assistant Divisional Engineer on 24.05.1997, and at the time of inspection, the inspecting authority found that there was no terminal cover seal to the metre and on testing the metre with 2 KW heater load, the metre disc was found moving in reverse direction in ‘B’ phase and forward direction in ‘Y’ and ‘B’ phases. During the said inspection, it was also found that the incoming and outgoing phase terminal wires were reversely connected, as such, the supply being used by the consumer was not properly recorded in the metre, and thus, major portion of consumption was suppressed. During the inspection, it was also noticed that though the sanctioned load was only 1.4 KW, but the petitioner was connected to the load of 6.6 KW, and thus, exceeded the sanctioned load. Therefore, proceedings were initiated for assessing the loss suffered by the respondent-Company. 3. The 2nd respondent-Divisional Engineer, who is the assessing authority, after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and after examining various contentions raised by him, has assessed the loss of energy to be at Rs.2,06,254/-, by his order dated 30.06.1999, passed in Proceedings No.DE/A/VSP/DOC.No.AKP- 109/D.No.167/99. As against the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Superintending Engineer as per the Terms and Conditions of supply. The appellate authority, by orders dated 07.10.2002, passed in Proceedings No.SAP.1238/VSP/D.AKP/AKP/A/E.182/D.No.689, has modified the demand from Rs.2,06,254/- to Rs.1,63,851.25, in addition to supervision charges of Rs.150/- and re-connection charges of Rs.50/-. 4. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority have not given proper opportunity to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. It is further submitted that though there was no evidence in support of the allegation of pilferage alleged against the petitioner, the respondents have passed the impugned orders by making the huge demand of Rs.1,63,851.25. 5. I have perused the detailed counter affidavit filed by the respondents and also perused the record produced by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for them. 6. From the counter affidavit and also from the record produced before this Court, it is clear that during the inspection, it was observed that the metre terminal cover seals were removed and the metre disc was found moving in reverse direction in ‘R’ phase. It is categorically alleged that the incoming and outgoing phase terminal wires were reversely connected. After making the provisional assessment, the Divisional Engineer has served a notice on the petitioner-consumer vide his letter No.642, dated 05.08.1997, asking him to show cause as to why the loss suffered by the TRANSCO on account of pilferage could not be estimated at Rs.2,06,254/-. In response to the said notice, on behalf of petitioner, on Sri Buddha Trinadha Rao, Advocate, has filed his objections vide his letter dated 28.11.1997. In the said letter, except stating that there were number of fabrication workshops at Anakapalle, there was no explanation at all on the allegations made against the petitioner with regard to removal of metre seal covers and also for wrong connections, which were found during the inspection. The assessing authority, having dealt with the explanation offered by the petitioner through his Advocate in the letter dated 28.11.1997, has assessed the loss at Rs.2,06,254/- . Even the appellate authority, in appeal which was preferred as per the terms and conditions of supply, has considered the matter and modified the quantum of loss from Rs.2,06,254/- to Rs.1,63,851.25. In view of the procedure followed, which is in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply, it cannot be said that the impugned assessment orders are passed without following due procedure. Though the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of a Criminal Court in C.C.No.115 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anakapalle, but in view of the degree of proof, which is required to bring home the guilt of accused in criminal proceedings, cannot be applied for the purpose of assessing the loss of energy, which has to be done in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply, framed by the respondent-Company. In that view of the matter and also in the absence of any procedural irregularity, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the respondents while assessing the loss of energy, warranting interference in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd November 2009 ajr