Tirumala Modern Rice Mill rep. by its Managing Partner Sri. Ashok Kumar Agarwal vs Chief Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of A. P. Ltd (AP TRANSCO)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(AP) 371

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
Tirumala Modern Rice Mill rep. by its Managing Partner Sri. Ashok Kumar Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Chief Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd (AP TRANSCO) - Respondent
Decided On : 04/02/2007
Case No : Writ Petition Nos. 22023 of 2006, 22117 and 23865 of 2006

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:P. Laxma Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1 & R2, SC for AP Transco, R3, Counsel.

Headnote:
Electricity Act, 2003 –Section 135, 154,126(4) - Assessment Order/Notice - Criminal Cases - Determining Civil Liability - Availing Electricity Supply – Petitioner in is availing electricity supply from the respondents under L.T. Category-III service connection bearing second respondent inspected the petitioner’s premises and found that CT meters and CT chamber seal bit to be in tampered condition n opening the CT box, it was observed that R-phase CT secondary terminal S1 connection is loose and R-phase potential connection at tapping point is loose. There were also other incriminating circumstances second respondent came to prima facie conclusion that the petitioner resorted to pilferage of energy. A case under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was registered and power connection was disconnected. Provisional value of electricity pilfered was assessed including electricity duty and supervision charges and the petitioner was asked to approach the Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Officer (ERO) for restoration of supply by paying fifty per cent of the provisional assessment value. He was also informed that necessary proceedings would be initiated for determining civil liability under Section 154 of the Electricity Act –Held, petitioners admittedly paid 50% of the provisional assessment amount and claim the benefit of the proviso to Section 126(4) of the Electricity Act. Going by the language of the proviso relied on by the petitioners, it must be held that they cannot get any benefit out of it. Section 126(4) of the Electricity Act lays down that entire provisionally assessed amount has to be deposited within seven days of service of the order and only in such an event the consumer is discharged from further liability. Payment of 50% after receipt of the provisional assessment order would presuppose that the petitioner intends to file objections and invite a final assessment order as contemplated under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act. When the consumer pays the entire provisional assessment amount, Section 126(4) of the Electricity Act comes into effect. If a consumer pays only 50% of the provisionally assessed amount, so as to obtain re-connection of power supply (in case it is disconnected), it would only indicate state of mind that such consumer is objecting the provisional assessment made by the provisional assessing authority. Such consumer cannot get benefit under Section 126(4) read with its proviso. In these cases, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit under the proviso to Section 126(4) of the Electricity Act –writ petitions are disposed

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves allegations of electricity theft and the assessment of liability under the Electricity Act, 2003, specifically sections related to provisional assessment, civil liability, and criminal proceedings (!) (!) .
The petitioner was found to have tampered with meters and other electrical equipment during inspection, leading to a prima facie conclusion of energy pilferage, resulting in disconnection and provisional assessment of the stolen energy (!) (!) .
The petitioner paid 50% of the provisional assessment amount and claimed the benefit of the proviso to Section 126(4) of the Electricity Act, which relates to discharge from further liability upon full payment within seven days of the provisional order (!) .
The court held that paying only a partial amount (50%) does not entitle the consumer to the benefits of Section 126(4), as the section requires the full amount to be deposited within the specified period to discharge liability (!) .
The assessment of the energy pilfered can extend beyond a three or six-month period depending on the circumstances, and the assessing officer is not strictly bound to limit the period to those durations, especially if evidence suggests a longer period of unauthorized use (!) (!) .
When a consumer accepts and deposits the full assessed amount within the stipulated time, further civil or criminal proceedings against the consumer are barred, and the case is considered closed (!) .
If the consumer disputes the provisional assessment, they have the right to file objections and seek a final assessment, which the final authority may pass after considering the objections (!) (!) .
The provisions of Part XIV and Part XV of the Electricity Act, which deal with criminal and civil liability, do not apply once the consumer has paid the assessed amount under Section 126(4), unless proceedings are already initiated or referred to a special court (!) (!) .
The interpretation of the proviso to Section 126(4) indicates that it functions as an exception and can be construed as an independent provision, which limits further liability once the full assessed amount is paid within the prescribed period (!) (!) .
The assessment process and the legal provisions emphasize the importance of reading the statute as a whole, considering legislative intent, and interpreting provisions in context to avoid conflicts and achieve clarity (!) (!) .
The court clarified that provisional assessments are based on the best judgment of the assessing officer and that the period presumed for unauthorized use can be extended if supported by evidence, not strictly limited to three or six months (!) (!) .
The legal framework aims to balance enforcement against theft and unauthorized use of electricity with the rights of consumers to object and seek final adjudication, but once the consumer deposits the full assessed amount, further liability is extinguished (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores that partial payments do not suffice to absolve liability under Section 126(4), and the statutory scheme is designed to ensure that once the full amount is paid timely, the consumer's further liabilities are barred, barring any ongoing proceedings or objections (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these key points.

Judgment :-

Common Order:

This common order shall dispose of these three writ petitions as question raised and the background of the cases is similar. The respondents in these three writ petitions are also the same.

The petitioner in W.P.No.22023 of 2006 is availing electricity supply from the respondents under L.T. Category-III service connection bearing No.7335. The second respondent inspected the petitioner’s premises on 28.09.2006 and found that CT meters and CT chamber seal bit No.A40033 to be in tampered condition. On opening the CT box, it was observed that R-phase CT secondary terminal S1 connection is loose and R-phase potential connection at tapping point is loose. There were also other incriminating circumstances. The second respondent came to prima facie conclusion that the petitioner resorted to pilferage of energy. A case under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Electricity Act, for brevity) was registered and power connection was disconnected. Provisional value of electricity pilfered was assessed at Rs.5,64,429/- including electricity duty and supervision charges and the petitioner was asked to approach the Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Officer (ERO) for restoration of supply by paying fifty per cent of the provisional assessment value. He was also informed that necessary proceedings would be initiated for determining civil liability under Section 154 of the Electricity Act.

In other two cases also, the facts are similar though the amounts demanded vary. In all the cases, criminal cases were registered and the petitioners are informed that the cases would be referred to appropriate special Court for determination of civil liability. In all the three cases, FIR was also lodged with the third respondent, who registered crime under Section 137 of the Electricity Act. It is also the case of the petitioners that after receiving provisional assessment notices, they paid 50 per cent of the provisionally assessed value of the energy allegedly pilfered and therefore, no further action whatsoever can be taken against them.

The petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus declaring the provisional assessment order/notice insofar as it is contrary to Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act as illegal and arbitrary. They also seek a further declaration that the action of the third respondent in registering crime as illegal and unconstitutional as well as contrary to the provisions of Sections 126(4) of the Electricity Act. Their main contention is that while assessing the value of the electricity allegedly pilfered, the second respondent ought to have calculated the amounts for maximum period of six months only as per Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act. It is also their further contention that when the consumer accepts the provisional assessment and pays the amounts without any demur, further action for criminal as well as civil liability cannot be taken against the consumer as per the proviso under sub-section (4) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act.

The second respondent filed counter affidavit in all the three matters separately. It is only necessary to refer to the counter in W.P.No.22023 of 2006. It is stated in the counter that after receiving the provisional assessment order, the petitioner deposited 50% of the provisional assessment amount. However, it is denied that Section 126 of the Electricity Act is applicable even in the case of dishonest abstraction of energy. Section 153(1) of the Electricity Act provides for fixing the civil liability as well as criminal liability under Section 135 of the Act. A reference is made to the Terms and Conditions of Supply framed by Northern Power Distribution Company Limited (NPDCL) especially condition No.10 which purportedly requires the consumer to deposit 50% of the provisional assessment amount pending adjudication by special Court for fixing civil liability.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act, it can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2007 Supreme(AP) 371

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis