HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2652 of 2006 Date : 15.11.2011 Between : K. Babulu. …..Petitioner And Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., (AP TRANSCO), Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2652 of 2006 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, questioning the proceedings, dated 15.11.2005, issued in assessment order No.SEA/HYD/F.No.KNL-297/SAH No.9973/D.No.2117. By the aforesaid order, on the allegation of pilferage of energy by the petitioner, the value of loss sustained by the respondent-Corporation, is estimated at Rs.90,355/- and the petitioner was asked to pay the said amount along with Rs.150/- towards supervision charges. The petitioner is having electricity service connection under low tension category-III and availing supply from the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited (APCPDCL), as per the terms and conditions of supply. The petitioner’s service connection was inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, DPE-I, Kurnool, on 12th August 2005, and during the inspection, it was found that the metre disk was not rotating in “Y” phase, as another extra phase wire from nearby LT overhead lines was connected to outgoing side of “Y” phase by removing the fuse top. After removal of extra phase and keeping the carrier to in proper position disc is rotating in forward direction. On the aforesaid allegation, alleging that it constitute pilferage of energy, assessment proceedings were initiated. When the provisional assessment was communicated to the petitioner with a demand of Rs.1,50,826/- and petitioner was asked to pay Rs.75,314/- towards 50% of the charges, the petitioner has filed his explanation. After filing explanation, the impugned order is passed finally assessing the loss at Rs.90,355/-, in addition to Rs.150/- towards supervision charges. The petitioner was asked to pay the said amount within 30 days of receipt of the said order, with an observation that failing to pay the said amount, service will be disconnected. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that in view of the provision under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the assessment should have been confined for the charges as mentioned under Section 126(5) of the Act. As the assessment is made for a period of 12 months, it is pleaded that such assessment is illegal and contrary to Section 126 of the Act. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. In the counter, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the assessment notice has been issued to the petitioner in accordance with the provision under Section 135 of the Act and general conditions of supply. In the counter, it is specifically contended that Section 126 of the Act has no application to the impugned assessment proceedings. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for respondents. I have perused the provisions under Sections 126 and 135 of the Act. Section 126 of the Act relates to assessments where there is unauthorized use of energy. In case of unauthorized use of energy, as per Section 126(5) of the Act, it shall be presumed that such unauthorized use of energy was for a period of minimum three months in the case of domestic and agricultural services, and for a period of six months for all other category of services, unless the onus is rebutted by the person, occupier or possessor of such premises or place. Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with the theft of electricity. In this case, in view of the allegation made against the petitioner, it falls within the scope of Section 135(b) of the Act, which deals with tampering of metre. The specific allegation of respondents is to the effect that the metre disk was not rotating in “Y” phase when the metre is in running condition, and it was found that another extra phase wire from nearby LT overhead lines was connected to the outgoing side of “Y” phase by removing the fuse top. In that view of the matter, it is a clear case of tampering the metre by the consumer, but not unauthorized use within the meaning of Section 126 of the Act. As the validity of the impugned order is questioned only on one ground, as this Court is of the view that in view of the allegations made against the petitioner, it is a case of theft of energy falling under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, but, not a case of unauthorized use as contemplated under Section 126 of the said Act, I do not find any illegality in the impugned demand, so as to interfere with the same. It is stated that pending the assessment proceedings, the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.19,030/- on 24th of August 2005. In that view of the matter, petitioner is granted three months time from today, for payment of the balance amount pursuant to the impugned order, dated 15.11.2005. If the amount demanded as per the impugned proceedings is not paid within the aforesaid period of three months, it is open for the respondents to issue notice for disconnection and take steps in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th November 2011 ajr