IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.29273 OF 2010 DATED:24.11.2010 Between: K. Satyanarayana … Petitioner And A.P. Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director Tirupati, Chittoor District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.29273 OF 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the proceedings dt.24.8.2010 issued by the fourth respondent in Lr. No.ADE/OP/D2/Vja/F. Sub-Eng/D.No.1351/10. The petitioner is owner of the premises bearing No.29-36-38, Museum Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada. The said premises consists of ground floor plus three floors. For the entire building, the petitioner is availing electricity from five service connections. It is the case of the petitioner that second and third floors of the building are being used for domestic purpose, where he is residing, and the ground floor and a portion of the first floor were let out to K.L. University. The service connections that are being used for residential/domestic purpose are in Category-I and the service connections that are being used for K.L. University are in Category-II. On the ground that during an inspection with regard to the service connection bearing No.64233 57 037242 it was found that the petitioner was using the same for office purpose, having obtained the connection for domestic purpose under Category-I, and the same would amount to unauthorized use within the meaning of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the fourth respondent issued the impugned assessment order demanding Rs.1,39,756/- from the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that no proper inspection was made and the service connection bearing No. 64233 57 037242 is being used only for domestic purpose and not for office purpose. It is submitted that the respondent authorities mistook the service connection in raising the demand, without making inspection of all the service connections, which are existed in the premises. A perusal of the impugned proceeding itself indicate that if the petitioner is having any objection to the proposed assessment, the petitioner was given liberty to make a representation within fifteen days. The impugned demand is in the nature of provisional assessment. In case the petitioner is not liable to pay such demand, it is for him to raise objections to the impugned demand. When the assessment proceedings are pending before the authority, whether the allegation is correct or not is a matter for enquiry before the assessing authority and as such, in view of the pendency of the proceedings, it is not desirable to record any finding on the explanation being offered by the petitioner. Inasmuch as the petitioner has already filed explanation and as it is his case that the service connection in question is used only for domestic purpose and there are two service connections that are being used exclusively for office purpose, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to continue supply to the service connection of the petitioner on payment of half of the demand raised in the impugned proceedings, pending disposal of the final assessment proceedings. The amount which is to be paid will be subject to final orders in the assessment proceedings. It is also needless to mention that if any request is made by the petitioner for inspection, I am sure that the respondents will also consider such request of the petitioner, before final orders are passed in the assessment proceedings. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 24.11.2010 bnr