Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass and, therefore, the factual position needs to be noted in brief. The appellant No.1-corporation is the successor company of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (in short the ‘Board’).

2. The business premises of the respondent were inspected by the officials of the appellant No.1-Corporation. The respondent was a low tension category consumer. On 10.9.1993 a provisional assessment was made alleging pilferage of energy and a sum of Rs. 27,610/- was demanded. It was indicated to the respondent that if it wanted to avoid disconnection it should deposit 50% of the amount fixed on provisional assessment. The same was deposited. On 15.12.1993 a show cause notice was issued proposing to charge Rs. 1,41,270/- on final assessment. The respondent filed its objection. On 29.9.1998 the final assessment was made confirming the amount indicated in the show cause notice.

3. Appeal as provided under the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board was filed. The said Terms and Conditions of Supply were notified by the Board in exercise of powers conferred by Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. A prayer was made to grant opportunity to cross examine certain officials of the appellant No.1-Corporation on the basis of whose statements the final assessment was made. By order dated 6.3.1999 the request was declined on the ground that there was no provision for such a prayer being accepted. A Writ Petition was filed before the High Court. While hearing the matter on the issue, learned Single Judge noted that there were inconsistent views expressed by different learned Single Judges. This is how the matter was referred to a Division Bench. By the impugned order the High Court noted that there was no dispute that the amount on being determined by the final assessment on the ground of alleged pilferage if recovered would result in civil consequences. Therefore, the enquiry being quasi judicial in nature fair play is required and fair play implies the fair opportunity which includes cross examination of persons whose statements were going to be relied by the authorities. The High Court accordingly held as follows:

“In the instant case, if the authorities are relying only on accounts and not on any statements or reports, may be the cross examination of any person who has prepared the accounts is not necessary. But if any statement or report is made pointing out the act of pilferage, the petitioner shall be entitled to call the said person for cross examination”.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court’s view about the desirability of granting opportunity for cross examination is not supportable in law. According to him, the officers have no personal interest in the matter and, therefore, their statements are to be considered in the proper perspective by the authority making the final assessment. There was no question of any cross examination of such persons. Strong reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. (1998 (4) SCC 470), more particularly, paragraphs 39 and 43. With reference to a decision of this Court in The New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. v. The New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd. (1957 SCR 98) it was submitted that the Terms and Conditions of Supply do not envisage grant of an opportunity for cross examination as the procedure provided for does not contemplate of anything like recording oral evidence and receiving documentary evidence in the normal way as in Courts of law. What is necessary is granting a fair and proper hearing and this has been done. With reference to another decision of this Court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Anr. V. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeal