AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.—The petitioner in the instant writ petition challenges the order passed by the second respondent herein in No. SEA/HYD/ F.RR.607/SAH-7425, dated 31-8-1999 stated to have been served upon the petitioner on 6-12-1999.
I have elaborately heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and perused the records made available by the learned Standing Counsel.
The fourth respondent herein issued provisional assessment notice dated 21-2-1999 alleging that during the time of inspection of the premises and the meter it was found that the seals were in a tampered condition. The petitioner challenged the said provisional assessment by filing W.P. No. 8245 of 1999 and the same has been disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to restore the power supply to the petitioner subject to the condition of petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner accordingly deposited the amount and obtained the restoration of power supply.
The second respondent herein issued show-cause notice dated 2-7-1999 requiring the petitioner herein to submit his explanation within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said show-cause notice. The said show-cause notice, according to the petitioner, was received by him on 9-8-1999. But the record made available by the learned Standing Counsel would show that the petitioner had in fact, received the show-cause notice on 27-7-1999 itself. It is however, the case of the petitioner that he has engaged a Counsel and filed Vakalath on behalf of the petitioner on 1-9-1999. The petitioner''s Counsel required the second respondent to furnish some documents so as to enable the petitioner to file his explanation in the matter. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner is served with letter dated 15-10-1999 informing that the petitioner''s case had already been finalised by an order dated 31-8-1999. It is under those circumstances, the present writ petition is filed challenging the same.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from incurable legal infirmities apart from being violative of principles of natural justice. It is contended that no order as such has been passed on 31-8-1999 as stated by the respondents and at any rate, the respondents after receiving the requisition from the learned Counsel for the petitioner ought to have given reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.
Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that the respondents having waited for an explanation from the petitioner upto 30-8-1999 passed the impugned order on 31-8-1999 as there was no response whatsoever from the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner failed to submit his explanation even after receiving the show-cause notice on 27-7-1999. But that itself would not be enough for confirming the provisional assessment made by the Asst. Divisional Engineer. The second respondent herein is required to apply his independent mind to the facts and material available on record has to be taken into consideration before passing appropriate order fixing the liability upon the consumer. The record in the instant case would disclose that the second respondent merely affixed the signature on a proforma and the blanks in the said proforma appears to have been filled in by somebody else and not by the second respondent. Even in the absence of an explanation from the petitioner, such a course ought not to have been adopted by the second respondent-Superintending Engineer. After all he is the authority who is required to adjudicate and assess as to what exactly is the energy alleged to have been pilfered by the petitioner and amount if any liable to be paid in the matter. Such mechanical exercise of power would not meet the requirement in law. The second respondent is required to decide and adjudicate the matter. There is nothing like passing an ex parte order, In a given case, if there is no explanation, the material available on record itself may not support the initial assessment. Therefore, the competent authority is required to decide the matter with reference to the material available on record. At any rate, an order which is in the form of a cyclostyled proceeding cannot be upheld.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances in this case, I am of the considered opinion, that the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein is not in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Under those circumstances, the petitioner need not prefer an appeal and challenge the same. The impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
The matter shall stand remitted for fresh consideration by the second respondent in accordance with law. The petitioner shall now submit his explanation before the second respondent on or before 10th of January, 2000. The second respondent shall permit the petitioner or his Counsel for inspection of the documents required for preparing the explanation in the matter. The second respondent shall permit the petitioner or his Counsel to peruse those documents at any time after 3rd January, 2000 but before 10th of January, 2000 so as to enable the petitioner to submit his explanation. The explanation to be so submitted shall be received and a reasonable opportunity shall be provided to the petitioner for submitting his case and thereafter an appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law after taking each and every objection of the petitioner into consideration. The proceedings themselves may be disposed of by the end of January, 2000.
The writ petition shall stand accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.