THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22924 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.CGM/O&CS/EPDCL/VSP/O&M-II/PF Case/D.No.1437/08, dated 28.08.2008, issued by the 1st respondent- Chief General Manager/O&CS, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam, whereby the proceedings No.SAT.9337/D.VZM/D.No.757/99, dated 27.05.1999 issued by the 2nd respondent-Superintending Engineer, Assessments Circle, A.P. Transco, Vijayawada, was confirmed, as arbitrary and illegal, and to set aside the same. Under the impugned final assessment proceedings dated 27.05.1999, the father of the petitioner was held responsible for pilferage of energy and thereby assessed the loss sustained by the respondent Company at Rs.1,00,482/- and other charges. Aggrieved thereby, the father of the petitioner preferred appeal to the 1st respondent, who while confirming that the consumer had committed pilferage in use of energy, revised the assessment as Rs.80,784/- to be paid by the consumer, by his proceedings dated 28.08.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner represented before the appellate authority that he was not given an opportunity of hearing by the primary authority, the appellate authority, without considering the same, while confirming that the consumer had committed pilferage in use of energy, erroneously revised the assessment as Rs.80,784/- to be paid by the consumer. He further submits that pursuant to the interim orders dated 21.10.2008 passed in WPMP.No.29854 of 2008, the petitioner paid Rs.50,000/- towards the impugned demand. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that before issuance of impugned proceedings, notice was served to the father of the petitioner when he was alive, and admitted that no notice was served to the petitioner after the death of his father. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned proceedings. Unless and until a proper notice is served on the petitioner and an opportunity of hearing is provided to him, the impugned proceedings could not have been passed. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the proceedings dated 27.05.1999 and 28.08.2008 passed by the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively and directing the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and decide the matter afresh. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 26.10.2010 v v