IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28526 of 2011 Between: Valipireddy Indira … Petitioner And The Central Power Distribution Co., of A.P., Ltd., Rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Alapati Giridhar Counsel for the respondents: Sri S.V. Ramana for Sri O. Manohar Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28526 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the assessment made for short billing vide letter No.ADE/O/TDP/SER/F.THEFT/D.No.39/11, dated 09.09.2011, of respondent No.2. The petitioner is a HT consumer of the respondents. On the basis of the inspection made by the ADE/DPE/HT-IV and the inspection report submitted by him, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned proceeding making an assessment of Rs.12,06,691/- towards the shortfall in the consumption recorded by the meter on account of the alleged defect of CTPT set. While calling upon the petitioner to pay 50% of the sum of Rs.12,06,691/-, if she desires to continue the power supply, she is also given liberty to make a representation to the Divisional Engineer, Operation, Gooty, within 15 days from the date of service of the order. Assailing this proceeding, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced two contentions, namely; that the incriminating point referred to in the impugned proceeding is self-contradictory and that while on the one hand stating that the inspection revealed missing of ‘B’ phase current in meter display and at terminal test block due to the defect of CTPT set, the respondents have treated the case as one of theft. The learned counsel further stated that even assuming that the meter has not recorded the correct consumption due to defect in CTPT set, under condition No.7.5.1.44 of the terms and conditions of supply, the respondents are entitled to make an assessment only for a period not exceeding six months and that the assessment made by respondent No.2 would show that the same was made for a period of 47 months. Sri S.V. Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the respondents, submitted that even though the nomenclature of the impugned letter has mentioned the word ‘theft’, the case has been treated as one of defect in meter and a short billing was made by taking normal tariff as against the tariff calculated at three times in case of theft. The learned counsel has not disputed the plea of the petitioner that even if it is a case of short billing, the maximum period of six months requires to be taken into consideration. As far as the finding that there is defect in CTPT set is concerned, since the petitioner is entitled to make a representation under the terms and conditions before respondent No.4, who is competent to finally adjudicate on this aspect, it is not appropriate for this Court to render any finding thereon. In view of the fact that under condition No.7.5.1.44, the maximum period for which assessment can be made is only six months, this Court is of the opinion that the assessment of Rs.12,06,691/- made by taking into consideration the period of 47 months is prima facie contrary to the said condition and this needs to be examined by respondent No.4 on the representation that may be made by the petitioner. To meet the ends of justice, the respondents shall not disconnect the power supply till such time the petitioner makes a representation and the same is disposed of by respondent No.4, subject to the petitioner paying 50% of the amount of Rs.1,83,630/- which admittedly represents the short billing amount, if six months’ period is taken into consideration. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms. 1) The petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.4 within two weeks from today. 2) The respondents shall not disconnect the power supply to the petitioner’s premises till disposal of the representation by the petitioner, subject to her paying the sum of Rs.91,815/- within a period of one week from today. 3) The payment of the abovementioned amount shall be subject to the decision of respondent No.4 on the representation of the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.35228 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.11.2011 ES