IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8160 of 2002 Between: M. A. Qayyam Khan, S/o. Sri Hussain Khan, R/o. H. No. 18-8-239/A/1, Rawoof Nagar, Riyasathnagar, Hyderabad,. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Transco Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, Metro Zone APCDCL, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 3 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Dist. XII, Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad. 4 The Asst. Engineer, Dist. XII, Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ specially WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the orders of Respondents passed in Proceedings Order No.CEE/MZ/HYD/SMRT/D.No,7891, dated 13,3,2002 and set aside the said orders by declaring the same as illegal, void and violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.BASITH ALI YAVAR Counsel for the Respondents: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8160 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is proprietor of engineering and welding shop. He is availing power supply bearing Service Connection No.R2/15603 under LT category III at premises No.18-8-239/A/1, Rawoofnagar, Riyasathnagar, Hyderabad. Fourth respondent inspected the petitioner’s premises on 22.12.1995. It was noticed “all the four meter cover seals were found to be counterfeit, terminal cover was tampered and meter performance when checked with heater load was found to be recording low”. Therefore, he came to the conclusion that incriminating factors constitute pilferage of energy. He disconnected power supply on 09.01.1996 and issued provisional assessment notice dated 09.01.1996 assessing the value of pilfered energy at Rs.1,28,950/-. The petitioner was informed to pay half of the amount with supervision charges for connecting power and was advised to approach the Superintending Engineer (SE), who is ﬁnal assessment authority. SE issued a show cause notice dated 19.08.1996 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,68,254/- towards loss sustained by the Board. The petitioner did not send any reply. Therefore, considering the record, SE passed ﬁnal assessment order dated 31.12.1998 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,68,254/- towards value of pilfered energy and Rs.150/- towards supervision charges. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before second respondent, who by order dated 13.03.2002, dismissed the appeal conﬁrming the assessment. This is assailed in this writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that new meter is ﬁxed to the petitioner’s premises eleven months prior to inspection by fourth respondent, and therefore, the allegation of pilferage is not proved. When during eleven months prior to inspection there was no complaint by the oﬃcials, it was highly arbitrary to come to the conclusion about pilferage. It is also the contention of the petitioner that SE has applied abnormal rates while calculating the value of pilfered energy. Third respondent ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit on behalf of the respondents opposing the writ petition. It is alleged that though the show cause notice sent by SE was received, the petitioner did not submit any explanation and that the impugned order is sustainable. Condition 39 of the terms and conditions of supply promulgated under B.P.Ms.No.690 dated 17.09.1975 deals with mal practices including pilferage of energy. Mal practice and pilferage of energy are two diﬀerent kinds. Consumption of energy without meter, conduct preventing the correct recording in the meter and pilfering energy with or without any aid of device come under the category of pilferage. The Assistant Engineer tested the meter with heater load and found the recording low. This itself would come under consumption of energy without proper recording. Therefore, it is certainly pilferage. The defence of the petitioner is rather vague. He did not ﬁle any explanation after receiving show cause notice from SE. However, he raised two submissions before the appellate authority, second respondent herein. His contention that new meter was ﬁxed eleven months prior to inspection and therefore there cannot be pilferage is irrational. When the meter was tested on the inspection day it recorded low energy consumption than actually consumed. This itself would show that there was consumption of energy with improperly functioning meter. With regard to other submission in respect of tampered seals, this Court cannot go into such question as it is a question of fact. In view of this there cannot be any document that there was pilferage of energy in the meter used by the petitioner for his wilding shop. The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that exorbitant rates were applied while calculating the value of pilfered energy is also without any basis. Condition 39.12.1 of the terms and conditions of supply lays down that value of the energy estimated as a result of pilferage of energy shall be charged at the special rates prescribed by the Board and notiﬁed in the tariﬀ notiﬁcations from time to time. Fourth respondent provisionally assessed the value at Rs.1,28,950/-. However, it appears that SE, while issuing show cause notice calculated the value of pilfered energy at Rs.1,68,254/- which was also conﬁrmed in the order dated 31.12.1998. The petitioner has not placed before this Court the calculation sheet nor any binding rule or condition under which he is entitled for a reduced rate for pilfered energy. The impugned order of second respondent and that of the order of SE carry with them the presumption that being oﬃcials their acts are done properly in accordance with law. The presumption has not been dislodged by the petitioner. For the above reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is admitted that in addition to Rs.64,475/- paid by the petitioner after receiving provisional assessment notice, he also paid another sum of Rs.30,000/- in obedience to interim order of this Court in W.P.M.P.10180 of 2002 dated 25.04.2002. The balance amount of Rs.73,779/- (Rupees seventy three thousand seven hundred and seventy nine only) shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, as the matter is pending in this Court for the last six years, this amount shall not carry any surcharge or interest. With the above observations, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16th September, 2008 GHN To 1 A.P. Transco Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, Metro Zone APCDCL, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 3 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Dist. XII, Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad. 4 The Asst. Engineer, Dist. XII, Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VVS}