THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO: 11463 OF 2007 DATED:22.1.2008 Between: M/s.Sri Jyothi Ice & Cold Storage, Mandalaparru, rep by its Proprietor, K.Ramachandra Raju. Petitioner And The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, APSEB, Ganapavaram, West Godavari District and others. Respondents THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO. 11463 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 8.5.2006 passed by the Chief General Manager, O&CS, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner is an Ice Factory set up in the month of February, 1995 for manufacturing ice blocks. On 22.6.1996, the officers of the respondent Company inspected the factory premises of the petitioner and found that it pilfered the energy and accordingly, the 1st respondent – Assistant Divisional Engineer had provisionally assessed the loss sustained by the company at Rs.6,57,416.90 ps. and issued the provisional assessment order and disconnected the power supply. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.17345 of 1996 and this Court vide orders dated 1.7.2002 directed the petitioner to submit its explanation for the purpose of enquiry to be conducted for final assessment and to deposit certain amounts for the purpose of restoration of power supply and held that the respondents are entitled to proceed with the enquiry. Thereafter since the respondents disconnected the power supply without passing any final orders, the petitioner again filed W.P.No.21046 of 2004. In the said writ petition, the respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that during the pendency of Writ Petition No.17345 of 1996, the authorities have passed final assessment orders on 17.12.1997 and since the petitioner had neither complied with the assessment order nor challenged the same the power supply was disconnected. The said writ petition was ultimately disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2003 setting aside the final assessment order dated 17.12.1997. This Court has also left it open to the respondents to pass final assessment orders afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner. It was also made clear in that order that if the petitioner did not respond to the notice issued by the authorities, the authorities can pass final assessment orders after taking into consideration the explanation already submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner again questioning the final assessment orders passed by the 3rd respondent on the ground that he was not given any opportunity to defend his case. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent – Superintending Engineer issued show cause notice to attend the hearing on 10.1.2005 and accordingly he attended the meeting along with his Advocate, but the 2nd respondent without passing any orders sent the matter to the 3rd respondent – Chief General Manager, who is the appellate authority against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent and the said appellate authority had passed the impugned order confirming the final assessment order dated 17.12.1997. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the petitioner did not attend the personal hearing on 10.1.2005 and, therefore, an ex parte order was passed by the Superintending Engineer while confirming the assessment order dated 17.12.1997 and the petitioner was directed to approach the appellate authority by way of an appeal and the appellate authority had issued the notice to the petitioner to attend the personal hearing on 2.11.2005 and on that date the petitioner attended and submitted his written explanation and after considering the said explanation, the impugned order was passed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Superintending Engineer, who is the original authority to pass the orders subsequent to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.21046 of 2003 has not passed any orders and sent the matter to the appellate authority thereby forfeiting the right of the petitioner to file an appeal. At the time of hearing, the learned standing counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that the Superintending Engineer has, in fact, not passed any order and has sent the matter to the appellate authority and the appellate authority after issuing notice and considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner passed the final assessment order. The narration of the facts clearly indicate that the Superintending Engineer, who is the original authority to pass the order has abdicated his duties and sent the matter to the appellate authority i.e. the 3rd respondent, who has passed the order impugned in this writ petition. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the Superintending Engineer is directed to pass appropriate orders after taking into consideration all the objections raised by the petitioner. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATE: 23.1.2008 msv