HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.24936 of 2004 Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008 Between: M/s.Hytech Indusdries, Hyderabad, rep.by its Proprietor Ajay Kumar Dharak … Petitioner and The Chief General Manager (Operation), A.P.Central Power Distribution Co.l Ltd., Hyderabad and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.24936 of 2004 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 29.04.2004 as modified by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 10.12.2004 and set aside both the proceedings and pass appropriate orders. 2) A case of pilferage of energy was booked against the petitioner in pursuance of inspection of the premises of the petitioner on 17.12.2003 and the provisional assessment of Rs.4,24,474/- was made and after giving explanation by the petitioner, the final assessment was made at Rs.2,37,364/- and an appeal was filed against the final assessment order before the first respondent-Chief General Manager. The first respondent passed the impugned order dated 10.12.2004 reducing the amount to Rs.1,74,994/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 3) The grievance of the petitioner is that though the Electricity Act, 2003 came into force on 10.05.2003 much earlier to the date of inspection on 17.12.2003 in making the assessment period and the quantum, the authorities failed to follow Section 126 (5) and 126 (6), therefore, the orders are liable to be set aside. 4) Section 126 (5) and (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as follows: “126 (5): If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, it shall be presumed that such unauthorized use of electricity was continuing for a period of three months immediately preceding the date of inspection in case of domestic and agricultural services and for a period of six months immediately preceding the date of inspection for all the categories of services, unless the onus is rebutted by the person, occupier or possessor of such premises or place.” “126 (6): The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to one-and-half times the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5).” 5) As seen from the order, the assessment was made on the basis of the consumption charges of previous 12 months instead of six months and the quantum of consumption charges was estimated at three times instead of 11 ½ times. Therefore, this Court observed that there is apparent error in the order passed by the concerned authorities. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the orders passed by the authorities directing to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 29.04.2004 passed by the second respondent and the order dated 10.02.2004 passed by the first respondent are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned authorities to pass a fresh order according to Section 126 (5) and (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 by giving an opportunity to the petitioner. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 17.01.2008 Isn