( 1 ) THE Andhra Pradesh State electricity Board (for short, the Board"), the defendant in the trial Court, is the appellant. The respondents laid the suit but was dismissed and on appeal it was decreed. The respondents sought for declaration that the assessment dated 7-1-76 marked as Ex. A-16 made by the superintending Engineer (Operation), nellore, confirmed by the Chief Engineer in Appeal No. 3/76, dated 27-7-1976 marked as Ex. A-17, Is illegal void, ultra vires and not binding on the plaintiffs, to set aside the same, for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from executing Ex. A-16 or collecting any amount thereunder from the respondents and directing the appellant to refund a sum of rs. 6, 929-10 Ps. illegally collected from the respondents. It was granted. Thus this second appeal.

( 2 ) THE respondents filed cross objections for payment of interest on the amount directed to be refunded.

( 3 ) THE question claimed for adjudication in this appeal is the scope of jurisdiction of the civil Court to sit over the orders of the statutory officers, referred to above.

( 4 ) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: the second respondent is a Partnership rise Mill at Sarvepalli village. The first respondent has been working that mill. They had electrical connection of 20 HP to the said mill with service connections isc No. 87. On July 16, 1975, the Assistant Engineer of the appellant-Board who is examined as D. W. 1 inspected the service connection of the 2nd respondent and found the meter glass open up wards leaving a gap in between the bottom edge of the glass and the meter cover providing a space to insert any foreign material through the said gap stopping the function of recording the machine and thereby he found the electrical connection tampered with and electrical energy pilfered. Thereafter he considered the record of the past consumption recorded by the meter and he came to the conclusion that the meter reading is unduly low taking into account the connected load, the number of hours the respondents use the electricity; thereby he opined that the first respondent is guilty of pilferage. He disconnected the service. He issued Ex. A-14 notice directing the respondents that pending enquiry, to pay a sum of Rs. 28,324/-, the provisional estimate of the vslue of the energy pilfered by the first respondent, within a specified time and also other amounts in case he needs reconnection. The Assistant engineer laid the information before the superintending Engineer, Operation, nellore. The Superintending Engineer conducted a detailed examination of the case and got test reading done He issued a show cause notice on Octobers, 1975 asking the first respondent to show cause why the loss sustained by the Board on account of the pilferage commuted at the consumption service should not be es imgted at Rs. 9, 504-60 Ps. in all. The first respondent filed his objections to the said show cause notice, in his reply dated october 17,1975 marked at Ex A 15, therein, he admitted that his clerk g. Ramanaiah employed by him in the mill and was present at the time of inspection by the Assistant Engineer on July 16,1975 an exhibition was conducted in his presence and the clerk was not aware of the defect pointed out but he signed the papers Ha stated that the signature made by his clerk is not binding on him. He is unaware of the existence of any gap on pushing the glass upwards. He became aware of it only after receipt of the preliminary notice based onthe presumptions of the investigating officer. The inspecting officers that recorded the reading did not notice the malpractice attributed to him he also stated that during 1974-75 due to entrustment of the levy paddy for milling the work was considerably more and the recording of consumption was also increased. He did not produce any documentary evidence in proof therere of. He reques ted the Superintendingengineer to examine the the issue in a