HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.22938 of 2003 Date: December 20, 2011 Between: Hussain Moshin Mahafooz … Petitioner And A.P. Transco., rep. by its Chief Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and another … Respondents Order: Petitioner is a consumer of electricity and is availing supply from the respondents-Corporation under L.T. category vide service connection bearing No.S9-37151. His service connection was inspected by the 2nd respondent herein on 09.10.2003 at about 8.30 p.m. Alleging that at the time of inspection, it was noticed that both incoming and outgoing phase terminals are connected directly and the recorded consumption is not commensurate with the connected load, a case of theft of electricity was registered against the petitioner and the Provisional Assessing Officer by Lr.No.ADE/O/D-IV/c- VII/RTB/D.No.1137/03, dated 13.10.2003, passed provisional assessment order valuing the energy pilfered at Rs.77,846.14 and has given opportunity to the petitioner file his objections for the proposed final assessment; if the petitioner wished to obtain reconnection, he was asked to pay 50% of the assessed amount, i.e. Rs.38,923.07 plus supervision charges of Rs.50/- plus reconnection charges of Rs.50/-. At the time of admission, this Court, by order dated 03.11.2003, directed the respondents to restore power supply to the petitioner on payment of Rs.15,000/-, pending further orders. The said order continued all- along. The 2nd respondent-Asst. Divisional Engineer, Operation, APCPDCL, Golconda, has filed counter- affidavit, stating that the D.E., Assessments-I, Hyderabad has passed final assessment order vide proceedings dated 16.04.2004 valuing the energy lost due to pilferage at Rs.66,995/-. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the provisional assessment order itself is in violation of the provisions under Section 126 (5) and (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is evident from the counter-affidavit that the D.E., Assessments has passed final assessment order vide proceedings dated 16.04.2004 valuing the loss of energy at Rs.66,995/-. As much as the said order is not under challenge, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the final assessment order has not been served on the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to serve the final assessment order passed vide proceedings dated 16.04.2004, on the petitioner, if not already served. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the final assessment order dated 16.04.2004, it is open to him to question the same in an appropriate petition. It is made clear that respondents shall not disconnect supply of electricity to the petitioner for non-payment of the balance amount, for a period of two months from today. No order as to costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) December 20, 2011 MRR