ORDER:

Hear d Sr i Ch . Ven k at esh w ar a Reddy, lear n ed cou n sel appear in g on beh alf of t h e pet it ion er an d Sr i R. Vin od Reddy , lear n ed St an din g Cou n sel for TS Tr an sco, appear in g on beh alf of r espon den t s. 2 .

Th e pet it ion er appr oach ed t h e Cou r t seek in g pr ay er as u n der :

“… to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in including the alleged amounts commuted by it on the pretext of theft of energy through its provisional assessment order dated 22-11-2007 and even before passing the final assessment orders or furnishing the documents in terms of the directions of this Honourable Court as made in WP Nos. 27841/ 2007, dated 17.06.2009 and insisting upon to pay the bill including the provisional assessment balance amounts in the monthly bill of November as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to include the balance Provisional assessment amounts as computed by them and insist for payment of the same without passing the final assessment orders and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

3 . Th is Cou r t v ide it s or der dat ed 2 9 .1 1 .2 0 1 2 passed in t er im or der in W .P. No. 3 6 8 4 5 of 2 0 1 2 in favou r of t h e pet it ion er obser vin g as u n der :

“Notice before admission.

It is the allegation of the petitioner that pursuant to earlier provisional assessment proceedings, there is no final assessment yet and 50% of the provisional assessment amount has already been paid by the petitioner.

Learned Standing Counsel for APCPDCL appearing for the respondents seeks time to get instructions.

Pending further orders, respondents are directed not to take any steps for disconnection of power supply for service connection No. SZ051138 on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited

Rs.1,12,879/ -, which is stated to be charged on the allegation of pilferage. However, the petitioner has to pay the regular bill excluding the said amount included in the current bills.

Post on 10.12.2012”. 4 .

Sr i R. Vin od Reddy, lear n ed St an din g Cou n sel for TS Tr an sco, appear in g on beh alf of r espon den t s placed r elian ce on t h e av er m en t s m ade at par a Nos.3 , 4 an d 5 of t h e cou n t er affidavit filed on beh alf of r espon den t

No.1 . Par a Nos. 3 , 4 an d 5 of t h e cou n t er affidavit filed on beh alf of r espon den t No.1 ar e ex t r act ed h er eu n der :

“ 3 .

It is submitted that the demand notice dated 28-12-2018 has been issued to the petitioner under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 assessing the revenue loss caused at

Rs.5,55,012.00/ - and the petitioner was directed to deposit the 50% of the assessed amount i.e., Rs. 2,77,006,00/ - and the entire compounding amount. The petitioner was also served with a calculation sheet clearly detailing the connected load and the pilfered units along with the provisional assessment notice.

4 . It is submitted that the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted under section 135 of Electricity Act 2003 for theft of energy. Special Courts have been constituted to fix the Civil Liability in cases of theft. Th e case of t h e pet it ion er h as t o be r efer r ed t o t h e Special Cou r t an d t h e Civil Liabilit y sh all be assessed u n der sect ion 1 5 4 ( 5 ) of t h e Elect r icit y Act 2 0 0 3 .

Th e pet it ion er 's case can be r efer r ed t o t h e Special Cou r t on ly aft er paym en t of t h e en t ir e pr ovision al assessed am ou n t . 5 . It is submitted that this Honorable Court