THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.10761 OF 2004 DATED: 29.01.2010 Between: Syed Anees Ahmed .. Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer (Assessment), A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: It appears, aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 10.05.2004 issued by the Divisional Engineer, Assessments-1, APCPDCL, Hyderabad, requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.74,438/- towards the value of the energy pilfered by him in connection with Service Connection No.V-66000 LT Category-II, along with supervision charges of Rs.150/- and reconnection charges of Rs.50/-, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent- Superintending Engineer, and the 1st respondent confirmed the final assessment made by the Divisional Engineer, by order dated 19.06.2004. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 1st respondent disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner, without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that as per clause 39.10.3 of the Revised Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy by the A.P. State Electricity Board, the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal, after considering the submissions of the appellant in the memorandum of appeal, the material placed before him by the appellant and the enquiry records, and it shall not be obligatory for the appellate authority to give a personal hearing, but if a request is made for such hearing by the appellant, the appellate authority may grant such hearing to the appellant. He further submits that, in the case on hand, the petitioner has not requested for personal hearing, as stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, and, thus, the 1st respondent has considered the matter on the basis of the record available. A perusal of the impugned order dated 19.06.2004 would reveal that the grounds urged by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal have not been discussed by the 1st respondent, in detail, except stating that the appeal of the petitioner was considered. Thus, the procedure laid down in clause 39.10.3 referred to above was not followed by the appellate authority. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter needs to be considered afresh by the appellate authority. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.06.2004 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration of the appeal, in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 29th January, 2010. IBL