THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26187 of 2006 Dated 28th June, 2010 Between: Batchu Ganga Raju. …Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Rama Rao, For Sri C. Ramachandra Raju Counsel for respondents: Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for APTRANSCO The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside provisional assessment notice LR No.ADE/O/NDD/E.Doc.425/D.No.2139/2006, dated 12.12.2006, issued by respondent No.2 as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to restore and continue the power supply to the petitioner’s domestic service connection. I have heard Sri Rama Rao, learned counsel representing Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is a domestic consumer having service connection bearing No.4339. On 30.11.2005 respondent No.5 inspected the petitioner’s premises and found that the meter seals were tampered with. Following the said inspection, respondent No.2 issued the proceedings impugned in this writ petition, whereby he has provisionally assessed the value of the electricity allegedly pilfered by the petitioner at Rs.2,77,126/-. The petitioner was asked to pay 50% of the said amount for immediate restoration of power supply. Assailing the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions touching the merits of the case. In my opinion, as the petitioner’s civil liability is required to be determined by the Special Court under the provisions of Section 154 (5) of the Act, it is not appropriate for this Court to adjudicate on these contentions at this stage. It is pointed out that the petitioner was asked to pay Rs.75,000/- for restoration of power supply and that in spite of the order of this Court dated 18.12.2006 directing the respondents to restore the power supply on payment of Rs.10,000/-, the petitioner was made to pay Rs.75,000/-. In my opinion, the petitioner, being a domestic consumer, payment of the said sum of Rs.75,000/- is enough to continue the electricity supply till the civil liability is finally adjudicated by the Special Court under the above mentioned provision. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to take immediate steps for adjudication of the petitioner’s civil liability by the Special Court under Section 154 (5) of the Act. Till such adjudication is made, the respondents shall not disconnect the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection only on account of non-payment of any amount, in excess of Rs.75,000/-, which was provisionally assessed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 18.12.2006 passed in W.P.M.P.No.33629 of 2006 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.33629 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th June, 2010 GHN