IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 3018 of 2002 Between: Dr.V.Vikrama Kumar, S/o.Raghava Rao, R/o.Gandhi Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Divisional Engineer, Assessment Division, A.P.E.P.D.C.Ltd., Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.Ltd., Operations, Town Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....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 a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in Proceedings NO.1311 DE/A/RIY/DOC.NO.KDA- 527/D.NO.1662/01, dated:20.12.2001, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.RAVI SHANKER Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.AJAY KUMAR (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3018 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is availing power supply under category II for his service connection bearing S.C.No.F25229 at Kakinada. On 04.04.2000 his premises was inspected by third respondent. He found incriminating circumstances, namely, consumer utilized part of the domestic supply for commercial purpose unauthorisedly contrary to the terms and conditions of supply. Therefore, third respondent treated the same as mal practice and provisionally assessed the estimated loss to ﬁrst respondent at Rs.92,323.20. By communication dated 07.04.2001 the petitioner was informed to pay half of the amount to avail power supply. It appears that the petitioner paid half of the amount, availed power supply and also ﬁled objections before second respondent. Second respondent passed ﬁnal assessment order dated 20.12.2001 conﬁrming the provisional assessment. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. It is brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of third respondent that aggrieved by ﬁnal assessment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before ﬁrst respondent, which is still pending. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case. If the appeal is still pending, ﬁrst respondent may dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08th September, 2008 GHN To 1 Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Divisional Engineer, Assessment Division, A.P.E.P.D.C.Ltd., Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.Ltd., Operations, Town Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}