J RAGHU RICE MILLS Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER ELECTRICITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner questions the order of the 3rd respondent herein i.e., Superintending Engineer, Assessments, at Hyderabad dated 15-10-1987 and the order of the 1st respondent herein i.e., Chief Engineer (Electricity), Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Western Zone at Hyderabad in Appeal No. 16 of 1987, Rural Circle, Hyderabad dated 28-6-1988 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent, and seeks a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the said orders and quashing the same.

(2.) First the facts in brief. The petitioner is a proprietary concern of one J. Chandramouli (hereafter referred to as the petitioner) who gave the affidavit in support of the present Writ Petition. He set up a rice mill at Kalwakurthy in Mahaboobnagar District and is running the same under the name and style of the proprietary concern. The said rice mill has been receiving energy from the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board under Service Connection No. 670 (LT Category III). The original contracted load was 30 H.P. He decided to convert the said mill into a modern rice mill which required additional load of electrical energy and by application dated 26-4-1984 he applied to the Divisional Engineer, Operation, Mahaboobnagar for increase of load from 30 HP to 70 HP. By letter dated 18-5-1985, the Divisional Engineer sanctioned extension of supply of energy by 40 HP additional load to the existing 30 HP (making total of 70 HP) subject to the petitioner paying Rs.29,600/- as voluntary loan contribution towards estimated cost of the extension and also a sum of Rs. 9,910/- as subsidy. He states that subsequently he was orally allowed to purchase and supply to the authorities concerned a distribution transformer and, after deducting its cost, to pay the balance sum of Rs.15,775/- towards voluntary loan contribution. He also states that a new meter capable of taking the additional load upto 70 HP was also installed and that the distribution transformer supplied by him was installed by the authorities concerned.

(3.) On 15-11-1985, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Hyderabad visited the petitioner's rice mill premises and issued initial assessment notice dated 16-11-1985 stating that it was noticed that the petitioner exceeded the sanctioned contract load of 30 HP by drawing energy at 70 HP and that therefore was guilty of malpractice, and that the Superintending Engineer would enquire into the matter and would assess and fix the amount of loss sustained by the Board. He further stated that he provisionally estimated the value of energy misused at Rs. 36,805/- and directed the supply of energy to the petitioner to be disconnected. The 2nd respondent clarified that supply of energy would be restored on the petitioner paying 50% of the provisional assessment amount plus Rs. 100/- towards supervision charges, and directed the unauthorised load to be regularised. Thereafter, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 18,522.50 ps. (i.e., half of the provisional assessment, Rs. 18,402.50 ps. + Rs. 100/- supervision charges + Rs. 20/- re-connection charges) by demand draft dated 21-11-1985 and got the supply of energy restored to the rice mill. The petitioner paid the balance voluntary loan contribution of Rs. 15,775/- by demand draft dated 21-2-1986.