HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12593 of 2007 Dated 18th June 2007 Between: A.Rama Bharathi …Petitioner and Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., (AP TRANSCO) rep.by its Chief Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad & others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12593 of 2007 O R D E R: The petitioner is a consumer of electricity under L.T. Category-II, with Service Connection No.A9-4059. The premises of the petitioner were inspected on 22.12.2005. It was found that the meter was stuck up intermittently, and that the seals on it were in a tampered condition. Based on these observations, a notice of provisional assessment, dated 17.2.2006 was issued to the petitioner, pointing out that the energy charges, on account of the pilferage are assessed at Rs.1,05,525/-. The petitioner filed W.P.No.3211 of 2006, assailing the notice of provisional assessment. The writ petition was disposed of on 27.4.2007, by a Full Bench, along with a batch of writ petitions. Even while the writ petition was pending, the 3rd respondent passed an order of final assessment on 29.3.2007, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.73,641/-. The petitioner contends that he was not issued any notice, much less served with the final order, and the amount was included in the bill, dated 7.6.2007. He challenges the action of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It may be true that the 3rd respondent passed an order of final assessment, even while the writ petition filed by the petitioner was pending. However, it is not in dispute that there was no order of stay of further proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 3rd respondent flouted the orders of this court, if any. Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003, prescribes the procedure to be followed, while passing the order of final assessment. Issuance of notice to the consumer is mandatory. Though a vague observation is made that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, there is no reference to the explanation, or the alleged failure of the petitioner to submit the same. Even if the notice of provisional assessment is to be taken as a notice, the petitioner was not expected to file his explanation, while the writ petition was pending. This court is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to submit his explanation, and to pave the way for it, the impugned order has to be set aside. Therefore, the writ petitioner is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to submit his explanation to the notice of provisional assessment, within one week from today. The 3rd respondent shall pass fresh order, after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. The respondents shall not disconnect the power supply to the petitioner, in case he deposits a further sum of Rs.6,000/- (six thousand), within ten days from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 18th June 2007 PAN