IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21068 of 2002 Between: Managing Partner Mr. P. Vengaiah Chowdar S/o Sri Ramaiah M/s. Ashok Enterprises (Theatre) L.B. Main Road, Hanmakonda R/o 15-1-136, Rangampet, Warangal ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Electrical Distribution/APTRANSCO, Hanmakonda, Warangal District 2 The Divisional Engineer, DPE, APTRANSCO, Warangal, 3 The Superintending Engineer, Assessments Warangal, Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P., Limited ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI G.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR SRI R.RAGHUNANDAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ANIL KUMAR FOR SRI O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 27-08-2002 of respondent No.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is running a theatre and a consumer of the respondents. The theatre was inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Electrical Distribution/AP Transco, Hanamkonda on 25-07- 2001, and on the basis of the said inspection, a provisional assessment notice was issued for an amount of Rs.14,96,687/- for alleged tampering of the meter. After considering the explanation filed by the petitioner, the Divisional Engineer, Assessments, Warangal, passed final assessment order for a sum of Rs.13,96,884/-. The said order was questioned by the petitioner in appeal filed before the Superintending Engineer, Assessments, Warangal-respondent No.3. By order dated 27-08-2002, respondent No.3 disposed of the appeal by reducing the liability of the petitioner to Rs.7,67,676/-. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Condition No. 39.7.4.3 of the revised terms and conditions of supply framed by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, which were adopted by the respondents till new conditions were framed, the final assessment shall be limited to a period of one year, if there is any ambiguity regarding the period for which pilferage has taken place. He invited my attention to sub-para (iii) of Para-IX of the order passed by respondent No.3 and contended that the request of the petitioner to limit the assessment to one year is not acceded to. The learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the calculation contained in sub-para (iv) of Para-IX of the order passed by respondent No.3, in appeal, clearly shows that the appellate authority has taken one year period only for assessing the loss of energy on account of the pilferage. I have carefully gone through the order of respondent No.3 and I find that he limited the period of assessment to one year only. In sub-para (iii) of Para-IX, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.3 has rejected the plea of the petitioner that one year period preceding the date of inspection shall be taken instead of the period immediately preceding 19-07-2000, the date on which the meter box was sealed. It is, thus, evident that respondent No.3 merely rejected the petitioner’s plea regarding which of the periods that is required to be taken and not the length of the period. Further, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the calculation contained in the order passed by respondent No.3 clearly shows that the period of pilferage is limited to 360 days. Hence, I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. No other point is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.7,00,592/- and he is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.67,084/- to make the sum of Rs.7,67,676/-, as finally assessed in the appeal by respondent No.3. The petitioner is given eight (8) weeks’ time to pay the balance amount of Rs.67,084/- (Rupees sixty seven thousand and eighty four only). Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 24th February, 2009 vrn