THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.10866 OF 2004 DATED: 29.01.2010 Between: V. Venkataram Reddy .. Petitioner And The Chief General Manager, Operation, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents ORDER: It appears, the petitioner has been availing power supply under Service Connection No.91 LT Category-III for his floor mill at G. Yerragudi Village, Tuggili Mandal, Kurnool District. The 3rd respondent- Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation), A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Pattikonda, Kurnool District, inspected the premises of the petitioner on 14.01.2003 and, on noticing certain incriminating points indicating that the petitioner pilfered energy, disconnected power supply to the premises of the petitioner and, thereafter, issued a provisional assessment notice dated 31.03.2003, asking the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,46,815/- towards initial assessment and supervision charges, if he wants to avail restoration of power supply, and the petitioner was also asked to show cause and file explanation before the final assessing authority. Thereupon, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent- Superintending Engineer and engaged an Advocate and the 2nd respondent, having heard the petitioner’s Advocate and having dealt with the matter in detail, finally assessed the value of the energy pilfered at Rs.42,712/- and, accordingly, issued final assessment order dated 31.12.2003, directing the petitioner to pay the said amount along with supervision charges of Rs.150/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.1275 of 2004 before this Court and, as per the directions issued by this Court while disposing the said writ petition, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent- Chief General Manager, against the final assessment order dated 31.12.2003. The 1st respondent, after detailed consideration of the matter, passed orders dated 12/13.05.2004, holding that the final assessment made by the 2nd respondent needs no revision and asking the petitioner to pay the said amount. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. The respondents filed detailed counter-affidavit supporting the impugned order and it is categorically asserted that the Electricity Act, 2003, came into force on 10.06.2003 and the cause of action for the proceedings against the petitioner arose on 14.01.2003 and, as such, the law as applicable on 14.01.2003 has been followed, and the authorities have not committed any illegality. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner has not committed any pilferage and, in fact, after the meter was tested in the Laboratory, nothing adverse was found out. He further contends that, even if it is assumed that there is pilferage, the assessment should have been made considering that the power was supplied three hours per day and in case of similarly situated person namely Meddileti Achari, the assessment was done accordingly, but, in the case of the petitioner, the respondents have arrived at the final assessment treating that the power was supplied four hours per day. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of the Court, the relevant guidelines and regulations showing that the average duration of power supply per day is four hours in rural areas and eight hours in urban areas. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to duration of power supply cannot be accepted. So far as the contention that there is no pilferage and nothing adverse was found out when the meter was tested in the Laboratory is concerned, they are all pure questions of fact and cannot be gone into in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The 2nd respondent as well as the 1st respondent have considered the matter in detail and, in fact, the 2nd respondent has considerably reduced the value provisionally assessed by the 3rd respondent to Rs.42,712/- in the final assessment. Viewed from any angle, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 29th January, 2010. IBL