THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.1663 of 2010 Date:04.03.2011 Between: Kandraggla Jeginaidu and others ..... Petitioners AND N.Appa Rao and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: None appeared Counsel for Respondents: Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 03.11.2010, in W.P.No.27342 of 2010. The petitioners are consumers of electricity having service connections bearing Nos.139, 565 and 42 respectively under agreement with the Rural Electrical Cooperative Society Limited, Vadrapalli (for short ‘the Society). The said service connections are used for agriculture and residential purpose. Alleging that the service connections were disconnected and that the respondents have taken away even the motor starter and the main switch, the petitioners gave a legal notice on 21.10.2010, demanding restoration of power supply and as there was no reply to the said legal notice, they filed W.P.No.27342 of 2010. This Court by order, dated 03.11.2010, while ordering notice, directed restoration of power supply subject to the petitioners paying all the arrears, if any, and continuing to pay the consumption charges in future. On the allegation that the said interim order was not complied with, the petitioners filed the present contempt case. In the counter affidavit filed by contemnor No.1, who is the Managing Director of the Society, it is inter alia stated that as petitioner No.1 was found tapping LT line, his service connection bearing No.39 was disconnected and that the other two service connections of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were not disconnected. It is further maintained that to the legal notice, dated 04.11.2010, issued by the petitioners, a reply notice was given on 06.11.2010 calling upon the petitioners to pay arrears of Rs.5,250/- for restoration of electricity and that as the payment was not made, supply could not be restored. Having perused the material filed along with the counter affidavit, this Court prima facie felt that the respondents have come out with a false plea of registration of pilferage case, and admitted the contempt case. Thereafter, an additional counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.1, wherein it was stated that on 30.09.2010, a complaint was received over phone that petitioner No.1 was indulging in pilferage by direct tapping, that due to urgency, the proforma inspection report was not taken by the inspecting officer and that a provisional assessment was prepared on 11.10.2010. It is further stated that when provisional assessment notice was sought to be served through one of the staff members, namely, Adari Nalla Appadu, Village Electricity Worker, petitioner No.1 refused to receive the same on 12.10.2010 and therefore, the supply was disconnected on 20.10.2010. I have extensively heard Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the contemnors. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not present. From the facts pleaded by the respondents, this Court finds several lose ends in the case of the respondents, which are as under: (1) The respondents have not prepared the purported inspection report in the prescribed proforma; (2) They have failed to issue a reply notice to the legal notice, dated 21.10.2010; (3) Had petitioner No.1 refused to receive the provisional assessment notice on 20.10.2010, there would not have been any reason for the respondents to issue reply notice, dated 23.10.2010, and state the above fact of detection of pilferage and refusal of petitioner No.1 to receive the provisional assessment notice; and (4) A perusal of the purported statement of petitioner No.1 admitting to his indulging in pilferage, a copy of which is filed along with the counter affidavit, shows even to the naked eye that there is disparity between the signature of petitioner No.1 contained in the said statement and the one contained in the contempt case. The above features would throw strong suspicion on the version of the respondents that the power supply could not be restored as petitioner No.1 was liable to pay arrears towards provisional assessment amount. In ordinary course, on the facts of this case, the respondents would have deserved stringent punishment. But, having regard to the mitigating circumstances, namely, the respondents after filing the contempt case have restored the power supply and offered unconditional apology, this Court takes a lenient view and let them off with a warning not to repeat such a conduct in future. Subject to the above observations, the contempt case is closed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 04th March, 2011 VGB