IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.21366 of 2005 Date: 28th September, 2010 Between: M/s Mahalakshmi Rubber Industries, Hyderabad, rep. by its Propreitor. .. Petitioner And Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., (APTRANSCO) rep. by its Chief Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyderabad & others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.21366 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in not refunding a sum of Rs.78,878/- collected by the respondents pursuant to the demand made by them in connection with inspection dated 15.9.2000 together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, petitioner is a Small Scale Industrial (SSI) Unit engaged in the manufacture of Auto Mobile Rubber Beadings, having L.T. Category-III (Industrial) Service Connection bearing No.M2-5137. While that being so, on 15.9.2000, an inspection was conducted by the Respondent Officials and found that the seals of the meter were tampered. Therefore, petitioner was issued with provisional assessment notice demanding an amount of Rs.3,15,510/- purported to be penalty for the pilferage of energy. Under the law, though the petitioner was supposed to deposit 50% of the amount for the purpose of restoration of power supply, petitioner deposited 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.78,878/- and got the electricity supply restored. Based on the complaint made by sixth respondent, a crime was registered and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which was numbered as C.C.No.29 of 2000 and ultimately the said C.C. was quashed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The learned counsel for petitioner states that quashing of criminal proceedings is a conclusive proof and Criminal Court recorded detailed findings to the effect that tampering of seals of the meter did not construe offence of pilferage. Once this is so, the respondents have no authority to retain the amount deposited by the petitioner for the purpose of seeking restoration of power supply. Further, the respondents have also not taken any action in pursuance of the provisional assessment notice. Therefore, withholding of the said amount is arbitrary and illegal. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for respondents that quashing of criminal proceedings by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not absolve the petitioner from the liability of demand made under provisional assessment notice. However, there is no answer as to whether the provisional assessment order was made final. Even the learned counsel for petitioner asserted that except the provisional assessment, no final assessment order was passed by the respondents. Under those circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that it is not proper on the part of the respondents to with-hold the amount of Rs.78,878/- collected by them in pursuance of the inspection conducted on 15.9.2000. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, holding that the respondents are not entitled to with-hold the said amount of Rs.78,878/-. It is brought to the notice of the Court that in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court, the said amount has already been adjusted in the future bills of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that this will not preclude the respondents from taking any action, as required under law, in this regard. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 28.9.2010 DA