IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 22202 of 2002 BETWEEN: Pratap Singh, S/o Shankar Singh, R/o 9-11-32, Mothidarwaza, Golconda, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Inspector of Police Vigilance and APTs, Team II, P.S. Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 D.P.E, D.E, Kurnool 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 may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 21-10-2002 in respect of Sc. No. S9-23895 issued by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner submits that his father Shankar Singh purchased the property bearing H.No.9-11-32, Mothidarwaza, Hyderabad, having electricity service connection No.S9-23895 Category II and that the petitioner is residing in the said house. He further submits that the second respondent inspected the premises on 06.10.2002 and the first respondent also conducted investigation and in that regard without passing any final order, the first respondent issued a notice in Cr.No.2206 of 2002 demanding to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/-. He further submits that he is not aware of the proceedings said to have been passed by the respondents and there is no basis for demanding him to pay the said amount of Rs.12,000/- towards penalty. 2. Counter has been filed stating that on 06.10.2005 the second respondent inspected the electrical service connection No.S9-23895 Category II in premises 9-11-32 in the presence of the petitioner and noticed certain irregularities such as; the meter disk not rotating; a blue colour PVC single Strand Copper wire was found inserted from meter incoming at meter outgoing and the loop wire was inserted through the meter box incoming and outgoing holes at the bottom side of the meter box. The incriminating wire used for bypassing the meter was removed and seized by the inspecting officials and based on the inspection report, after serving the same on the petitioner, the initial assessment notice was issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Distribution – IV vide letter dated 16.10.2002 assessing the pilferage amount of Rs.2,44,455/-. Based on the said report, a case in Cr.No.2206 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 39 and 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was registered on 19.10.2002. The impugned notice is not a final proceeding of any offence but it is only a notice indicating to pay compounding amount of the offence. 3. The relief claimed in the writ petition is only with regard to the notice issued calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty of Rs.12,000/- in lieu of prosecution. As the petitioner is not inclined to pay the penalty, it is always open to the respondents to proceed further pursuant to the registration of the crime. Insofar the initial assessment notice said to have been issued with regard to the pilferage is concerned, the said departmental action has nothing to do with the subject matter of the writ petition. The petitioner only questions the impugned notice alleging that without furnishing any particulars and without following due procedure, there cannot be any justification in calling upon him to pay the penalty amount of Rs.12,000/-. As it is stated in the counter that the petitioner was only asked to pay the compounding fee in lieu of prosecution, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can as well ignore the said notice as it is not a legal order or a notice issued after following due procedure prescribed in law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of keeping it open to the respondents to take appropriate steps in relation to the pending criminal case. However, it is open to the respondents to issue a fresh notice containing all the particulars for payment of the so-called penalty in lieu of prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 25, 2008 DSK