IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.14516 OF 2005 Date:07-02-2011 Between:- Korada Venkata Rao .. Petitioner And Transmission Corporation of A.P.Ltd., (A.P.Transco) rep.by its Chief Managing Director and others. .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioner assails the proceedings dated 21-12-2000 passed by the Superintending Engineer (Assessments) of the Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (A.P.E.P.D.C.L.), Visakhapatnam, the third respondent herein, and also his pending appeal before the Chief Engineer, Electricity Operation, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Visakhapatnam on the ground that the same are contrary to Section 49-C of the Indian Electricity (A.P.Amendment) Act, 2000. 2. This Court, by interim order dated 22-07-2005, directed restoration of the petitioner’s power supply. 3. Pursuant to the inspection of the petitioner’s premises on 27- 10-1999 by the officials of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, a case of pilferage of electricity was booked against the petitioner. Under provisional assessment notice dated 02- 11-1999, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (A.P.Transco) provisionally estimated the pilferage at Rs.1,39,106/-. The petitioner was directed to pay 50% thereof along with incidental charges in the event he wanted restoration of power supply. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.26343 of 1999 before this Court. By order dated 24-12- 1999, this Court disposed of the said writ petition opining that as the enquiry was still pending before the competent authority, it would not be possible for the Court to express any opinion as to the legality of the impugned notice. The respondents therein were therefore directed to complete the enquiry and in the meanwhile, restore power supply to the petitioner subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the demanded amount. There is no dispute that the petitioner remitted Rs.34,780/- pursuant to the provisional assessment notice, which would be approximately 50% of the demanded amount. 4. While so, the Superintending Engineer, Assessments Circle, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Visakhapatnam, passed the impugned final assessment order dated 21-12-2000 quantifying the petitioner’s liability for pilferage of electricity at Rs.1,83,059/- along with incidental charges. Giving credit to the amount of Rs.34,780/- already deposited by him, the officer called upon the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,48,279/- within thirty days. It appears that the petitioner filed an appeal against the said proceedings before the Chief Engineer, Electricity Operations, A.P.E.P.D.C.L. and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, he filed the present writ petition, perhaps upon being made aware of the legal position obtaining under the A.P. Amendment Act of the year 2000. Section 49 (c), introduced in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 by the Indian Electricity (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2000, came into effect on 31-07-2000. By virtue of the said provision, a Special Tribunal was constituted to try the offences under the Act and determine the compensation to be awarded to the electricity utility where the compensation was upto the value of Rs.5,00,000/-. Section 49(c)(5) stipulated that any case pending before any Court or authority immediately before the commencement of the Indian Electricity (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2000, which would have been within the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal shall stand transferred to such Tribunal. Therefore, as the said provision came into effect on 31-07-2000, the final assessment proceedings pending before the third respondent ought to have been transferred to the Special Tribunal constituted under the Act. The order passed by the third respondent thereafter on 21-12-2000 was therefore bereft of jurisdiction in the legal environment created by the Amendment Act. This Court had occasion to consider this aspect in Cheedi Rama Rao v. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. (A.P.TRANSCO) rep.by its Chief Managing Director and others[1] and unequivocally opined that the Special Tribunal alone had the power and jurisdiction to pass an order awarding compensation in terms of money for theft of energy after Section 49(c) was inserted in the Act. In that view of the matter, the action of the petitioner in availing the appellate remedy against the third respondent’s order dated 21-12-2000 is of no consequence and would not attract waiver or estoppel. Even with their consent, the parties could not have vested the third respondent with jurisdiction, which he lacked under the provisions of the statute after the amendment. Thus, the third respondent’s proceedings dated 21-12- 2000, devoid of jurisdiction, are liable to be set aside. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order before the second respondent would be a nullity. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the proceedings dated 21-12-2000 passed by the Superintending Engineer (Assessments), A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Visakhapatnam and the appeal proceedings pending before the Chief Engineer, Electricity Operation, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Visakhapatnam. It shall however be open to the respondents to transfer the case to the Special Tribunal having jurisdiction for adjudication of the matter in accordance with law. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 7th February, 2011 AMD [1] 2003(4) ALT 267