HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.11170 of 2004 Dated this the 15th day of February 2008 Between: Ashafaq Ali Quaraishi … Petitioner AND The Superintending Engineer, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, and another … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.11170 of 2004 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the first respondent-Superintending Engineer, in issuing the order dated 02.03.2004 without following the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, as illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. 2) The petitioner is a consumer of the respondents and is a commercial consumer. On 03.01.2001 the second respondent- Assistant Divisional Engineer inspected the premises of the petitioner, noted details, prepared a report and obtained signature of the petitioner on it. Later, it was noticed that the energy was pilferaged and a provisional assessment was issued for Rs.3,41,402/- directing him to pay half of the amount to restore the electricity supply and directed to pay further amount of Rs.80,000/- towards compounding fee. The petitioner filed W.P.No.234 of 2001 challenging the provisional assessment and this Court granted to restore the electricity supply on payment of Rs.50,000/- in two instalments while disposing of the main writ petition, through order dated 16.01.2001. The petitioner was forced to pay Rs.80,000/- towards compounding fee by detaining in the illegal custody. Later, the petitioner made a representation on 02.06.2001 and 25.11.2003 along with supporting material documents. The Divisional Engineer passed the final assessment order confirming the value of misused electrical energy at Rs.1,94,143/- and Rs.150/- towards supervision charges and Rs.50/- towards reconnection charges payable within 30 days. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer without following the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and without taking the facts and circumstances into consideration while passing the said order. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 3) The learned counsel for the respondents represented that though the petitioner stated that he had two xerox machines, one computer, two tubes, one fan, one bulb and a split A.C, the connected load as observed by the second respondent was 7.66 kilowatts. On the basis of it, the second respondent calculated the amount and ultimately the provisional notice was issued. The Assistant Divisional Engineer by taking into the consideration the representation made by the petitioner about the working hours etc., reduced the amount to Rs.1,94,143/-. 4) The only grievance of the petitioner is that though the order was passed subsequent to the Electricity Act 2003 came into force, the provisions of the said Act has not been complied with. 5) Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 refers to repeal and saving. Sub-clause (2) (a) of Section 185 reads as follows: “185. Repeal and Saving – (1) ……………….. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, --- (a) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken including any rule, notification, inspection, order or notice made or issued or any appointment, confirmation or declaration made or any licence, permission, authorization or exemption granted or any document or instrument executed or any direction given under the repealed laws shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.” 6) The above said provision makes it very clear that any action taken under repealed act shall insofar as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the inspection of the premises was done on 03.01.2006, which is the date of cause of action for initiating the action against the petitioner. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings under the repealed Act is not barred when once they are initiated earlier to the Act 2003 came into force. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the respondents and as no specific plea was made by the petitioner regarding the calculation of the amount and the consumption charges and as it is not for this Court to calculate the correctness of the assessment made by the respondents, I find no merits in the writ petition. 7) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 15.02.2008 Isn