APHC010429652018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3008]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 533/2019 Between:

1. T HE EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, OPERATION, KAKINADA.

...APPELLANT AND

1. C HEDELLA LAXMI, W/o Venkata Shivaji, Hindu, Age 49 years, Acqua Culture, Resident of D.No.2-379/2,Metlapalem, G.Vemavaram, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:

1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 533/2019

J U D G M E N T:

1. The appellant filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short CMA), aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2018 passed in O.S.SR.No.1356 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court under the Indian Electricity Act 2003 -cum- I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.

2. Brief facts of the case are that - the respondent is a consumer of electricity under Service connection No.1451480307001194 falling under „Category-LT3(A)(I) Industrial Normal of G.Vemavaram Village. On 16.03.2017, an inspection was conducted by A.E./D.P.E.-1/RJY in respect of the aforesaid service connection of the respondent. During the inspection, the inspecting officer noticed that the Prawn tanks directly hooking to the LT over headlines using generator wires with the help of change over switch, bypassing the energy meter and preventing the energy consumed from being recorded in the meter. Thus, the inspecting officer prima facie concluded that the respondent had dishonestly indulged in theft of energy by meddling with the meter and preventing the recording of the consumption of electricity utilized by him. The inspecting officer prepared inspection notes by recording his findings and the particulars of the total connected load during the course of inspection and served a copy of the said inspection notes on the representative of the respondent.

3. Thereupon, the inspecting officer prepared an inspection report dated 16.03.2017 and made an assessment of the loss sustained by APEPDC Limited, including supervision charges and reconnection charges, in a sum of Rs.2,50,749.06/-. The same was communicated to the applicant for taking further action for recovery of the value of the energy pilfered. By virtue of the powers vested in him under the General Terms and Conditions of supply, he demanded payment of Rs.2,50,574.06/- towards the value of the energy pilfered under a provisional assessment notice dated 20.03.2016, providing an option to the respondent to pay 50% of the assessed amount plus reconnection charges and supervision charges if the respondent was desirous of restoration of supply, and to pay balance 50% amount in installments pending final determination of civil liability under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act read with the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. Further, a criminal case was registered by the APTS Police against the respondent on the complaint lodged by the inspecting officer for the offence of theft of energy by the respondent punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

4. It is further stated that the respondent, even without making payment of 50% of the provisional assessment amount, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.11834 of 2017 questioning the validity of the provisional assessment notice dated 20.03.2017 and seeking a direction not to disconnect the service connection pending disposal of the writ petition. This Court, by an order dated 04.04.2017, while disposing of the writ petition, directed restoration of power supply subject to the condition of payment of 50% of the amount towards the value of the energy pilfered and further directed the petitioner to refer the dispute relating to final liability under