N MALLAMMA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER OPERATION ASSESSMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Damodar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and the Standing Counsel for A.P. TRANSCO.

(2.) The writ petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for an order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing initial assessment notice to the petitioner vide Lr.No.ADE/D-III/838 dated 12-9-2003 though the petitioner is not in possession and enjoyment of H.No.13-1-13/2/3 at Mangalhat, Hyderabad and further to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not causing detailed enquiry on the representation of the petitioner as against the above initial assessment notice as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and against principles of natural justice and consequently directing the respondents to cause a detailed enquiry in the matter and till completion of such enquiry the initial assessment notice may not be given effect and to pass such other suitable orders.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that she is the absolute owner of the house bearing No.13-l-13/2/A and also house bearing No.13-1-13/2/3 at Amarnagar colony, Mangalhat, Hyderabad and at present she is residing in the house bearing No.13-1-13/2/ A along with her family whereas house No.13-1-13/2/3 was let out to one Smt. Neelamma who is the daughter-in-law of her husband through his first wife. The above 'two houses are having two separate electricity service connections. It is also stated that the said Neelamma failed to vacate the aforesaid house and the writ petitioner filed O.S.No.1535/98 on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad praying for eviction of Smt. Neelamma therefrom and for recovery of possession of the said house. While the suit was pending, for non-payment of electricity charges by the said Neelamma, the above service connection bearing No.C4/ 3607 was disconnected by A.P. TRANSCO long back. It is further stated that the above suit was dismissed on the ground that Smt. Neelamma also is having share in the said house and as against the said Judgment and decree the writ petitioner preferred C.C.C.A.No.69/2003 on the file of this Court which is pending. It is further stated that in view of the dismissal of O.S.No. 1535/98 the said Neelamma is continued in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid house. While so, on 24-9-2004 the 2nd respondent served a initial assessment notice dated 12-9-2003 alleging that the service connection No.C4/3607 was under disconnection and when he inspected the premises No.13-1-13/2/3 on 7-8-2003 at 17.20 hours the inhabitants of the said house had been availing supply of electricity from LTOH line directly tapped by PVC insulated service wire and thus pilfered the energy. It is stated that the service connection in the name of the writ petitioner was under disconnection since she was not in possession of the property and in view of the same the question of pilferage of energy would not arise. It is further stated that the respondents are threatening and forcing the writ petitioner to recover the said amount with disconnection of the service connection of her house bearing No.13-1-13/2/A. Specific stand was taken that it is the duty of the respondents to ascertain who is living in house No.13-1-13/ 2/3 at the time of their inspection and should have conducted an enquiry to ascertain the person who had committed pilferage of the energy. It is further stated that the employees of A.P. TRANSCO are visiting the house of the writ petitioner every day and threatening her with dire consequences. Hence the present writ petition had been filed.