Jaggavarapu Venugopala Reddy vs. A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited

Held

The Court, while acknowledging the arguments from both sides and considering the facts and circumstances, did not delve into the merits of the alleged theft or the procedural irregularities. Instead, it disposed of the Writ Petition by providing a specific set of directions for the petitioner to comply with. The Court ordered that the petitioner's power connection shall be restored upon payment of 50% of the provisionally assessed amount, along with supervision charges of Rs. 100, CGST of 9% (Rs. 9), SGST of 9% (Rs. 9), and reconnection charges and other applicable charges. Furthermore, the Court directed that the balance of the provisionally assessed amount shall be paid by the petitioner in six equal monthly installments, commencing from October 15, 2021. The Court also stipulated that in the event of the petitioner's failure to adhere to these conditions, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to take action in accordance with the law. No specific finding was recorded on the legality of the provisional assessment itself, nor was the issue of natural justice explicitly decided.

Facts

The petitioner is challenging an order of provisional assessment dated August 13, 2021, issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer (Operations), APCPDCL. The petitioner's father had an electricity service connection, and after his death, the petitioner's name was incorporated. The petitioner claims he never committed electricity theft and that the finding of theft was due to a meter error. He also states that the respondent authority did not seek his explanation before issuing the provisional assessment notice. The revenue, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, contended that as per Clause 10.2.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, a consumer seeking restoration of supply after a provisional assessment for theft must deposit at least 50% of the assessed amount, with the balance payable in installments. Failure to comply could lead to disconnection.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional assessment order for alleged electricity theft was issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity to explain, contrary to principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the respondent authority followed the prescribed procedure for provisional assessment in cases of alleged electricity theft? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the provisional assessment notice was issued without providing him an opportunity to offer an explanation for the alleged theft of electricity. He contended that the finding of theft was erroneous and likely due to a faulty meter, and that the authorities concluded theft without proper inquiry. Revenue's arguments: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents relied on Clause 10.2.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. This clause outlines the procedure for provisional assessment in cases of electricity theft, including the requirement for the consumer to deposit at least 50% of the assessed amount for restoration of supply and the possibility of paying the balance in installments. The revenue highlighted that failure to adhere to these conditions could lead to disconnection of supply as per Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003.