High CourtsSingle Bench

Kausalya Devi (Smt.) vs A.P.S.E. Board, Hyd. and another

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 22 July 1998 · Citation: (1998) 4 ALD 701 : (1998) 4 ALT 594 : (1998) 3 CivCC 695

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.R. Nayak, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Electricity Act, 1910 — Section 24
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 4717 of 1998
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 330 words
1.

On 18-2-1998, the service connection to the petitioner''s house was disconnected on the ground of pilferage of power. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Board, the petitioner had filed W.P. No.7488 of 1998 and this Court disposed of that writ petition directing the Board to restore the power connection to the petitioner''s house subject to payment of 50% of the provisionally demanded amount.

2.

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents "not to pass any order without serving any notice on the petitioner and after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing and submission of explanation and to act accordingly and not otherwise by keeping of disconnection of supply under service No.N.3-1392". Although this is the relief sought in the writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the time of hearing, confined himself to contend that the disconnection of the power supply to the petitioner''s premises on 18-2-1988 was apparently illegal and in violation of Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act inasmuch as the disconnection was effected without prior notice of seven days and, therefore, the Board should be made accountable for the illegal act committed by it. This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no legs to stand in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur and others Vs. Harsh Wood Products and another, . In the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that Section 24 of the Electricity Act does not apply to demand on detection of pilferage. The initial assessment notice (pilferage) dated 18-2-1998 makes it very clear that during the inspection conducted on 16-2-1998, the alleged pilferage was detected. Since the demand was based on detection of pilferage, prior notice to the petitioner envisaged u/s 24 of the Electricity Act was not necessary as held by the Supreme Court.

3.

No ground is made out for interference. The writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.