Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 606 (TS)

Akther Sultana v. State Of Telangana

2020-08-11

K.LAKSHMAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K. Lakshman, J. - Heard Sri V.S.R.M.V.Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned G.P. for Energy appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 6. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the inaction of the respondents in passing any orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner reducing the amount as fine in Service connections 311301359 and 311508268 in respect of H.No.6-66/2/27, Khizra Enclave, Puppalaguda, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 3. It is submitted by Sri VSRMV Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is having two service connections i.e. Nos. 311301359 and 311508268. The respondents without serving any notice and without following due process of law demanded an amount of Rs.4,69,108/- in respect of service connection No. 311301359 and Rs.1,49,663/- in respect of service connection No.311508268. He would further submit that on the oral instructions of the respondents, the petitioner has paid Rs.1,17,496/-. The petitioner vide representation dated 12.06.2020 requested the respondent authorities to reduce the said amount since the said claim was without any basis and without following procedure laid down under law. He would further submit that the respondents having received the said amount did not act upon it, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. Respondents 2 to 6 filed counter. 5. Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 6 would submit that the petitioner is having two service connections and the same were inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer on 04.07.2017 and found that the electricity meter bearing No. 3115 08268 was found that there was no seal to the meter box and the meter terminal cover, both the meter cover seals are in tampered condition. Thus, the petitioner has committed pilferage of the electricity. He would further submit that the respondent authorities served demand notice dated 20.07.2017 provisionally assessing the pilferage of Rs.4,69,108/-. Accordingly, respondents have called upon the petitioner to pay 50% of the assessed amount i.e. Rs.2,34,554/- pending assessment proceedings to be initiated under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.1,17,496/- and also Rs.9,000/- towards compound fee. He would further submit that the petitioner did not pay an amount of Rs.1,49,663/- as per demand notice dated 20.07.2017. The petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.1,17,496/- and also Rs.9,000/- towards compound fee. He would further submit that the petitioner did not pay an amount of Rs.1,49,663/- as per demand notice dated 20.07.2017. In respect of the other service connection vide connection No. 311508268, the petitioner has paid only Rs.36,135/- towards demand amount and Rs.5,000/- towards compound fee instead of 50% assessed amount of Rs.74,831/-. According to him the respondents have properly assessed the said amount and issued demand notice dated 20.07.2017. He would further submit that the petitioner instead of paying the said amount, filed the present writ petition with all false and baseless allegations. 6. The petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 6 and would contend that the respondents have not served any demand notice and on oral instructions the petitioner has paid the above said amount of Rs.1,17,496/- and Rs.36,135/- in respect of the above said two service connections. 7. On perusal of the entire material paper and considering the oral submissions, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's premises was inspected by the respondent authorities on 04.07.2017. The respondents vide demand notice dated 20.07.2017 assessed the theft of energy at Rs.4,69,108/- in respect of service connection No. 311301359 and directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the amount i.e. Rs.2,34,554/- and compounding fee of Rs.9,000/-. But the petitioner had paid only Rs.1,17,496/- and the petitioner has to pay Rs.38,696/- towards 50% of the demand. 8. In respect of service connection No. 311508268 the respondent authorities have assessed the pilferage of energy charges as Rs.1,49,663/- and the petitioner has paid only Rs.36,135/- leaving balance of Rs.38,696/- towards 50% of the assessed amount of Rs.74,831/- and Rs.5,000/- towards compound fee. 9. Section 135 of the Electricity Act deals with theft of electricity and Section 154 of the Electricity Act deals with procedure and power of Special Court. As per Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, the Special Court will determine the civil liability in case of theft of energy. As per the general terms and conditions of the supply issued by the respondents, the petitioner has to pay 50% of the theft energy charges assessed by the respondents and civil liability will be decided by the Special Court as per Section 154(3) of the Electricity Act. As per the general terms and conditions of the supply issued by the respondents, the petitioner has to pay 50% of the theft energy charges assessed by the respondents and civil liability will be decided by the Special Court as per Section 154(3) of the Electricity Act. In view of the above said provisions, the respondent authorities are directed not to disconnect the power supply to the petitioner's premises bearing H.No.6-66/2/27, Khizra Enclave, Puppalaguda, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and service connection Nos. 311301359 and 311508268 subject to condition that the petitioner shall pay balance 50% of the assessed amount of Rs.1,17,058 in respect of service connection No. 311301359 and Rs.38,696/- in respect of service connection No.311508268 within four weeks from today. 10. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.