APHC010603652016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 4348/2016 Between: 1. CHEKKA SOMA RAJU,, S/O KAMESWARA RAO, AGED 53 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS STD (P.T), BOOT, OPP: BRUNDAVAN HOTEL, DRAKSHARAMA VILLAGE (PO), RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. T.VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED 57 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O OPPOSITE TO BRUNDAVAN HOTEL, DRAKSHARAMA (V) & (PO), RAMCHANDRAPURAM (M), E.G. DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. A P EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD, CORPORATE OFFICE BUILDING, P & T COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARRRA, VISHAKAPATNAM (PO) & DISTRICT- 530013. 2. THE ASST DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, OPERATION SUB DIVISION, APEPDCL, RAMACHANDRAPURAM (PO), & (M), EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER ASSESSMENTS DIVISION, RIVER BUND, OLD POWER HOUSE COMPOUND, APEPDCL, ULLITHOTA VEEDHI, RAJAHMUNDRY (PO) 4. THE ASST ACCOUNTS OFFICER ELECTRICITY REVENUE, OFFICE, 2 APEPDCL (RURAL), NEARE SUB STATION, MALLAYYAPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY (PO) 5330105 EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2. M RAVINDRA (SC FOR APEPDCL) The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P. Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Nagendra, learned Counsel representing Sri V.V. Sathish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL 2. The Impugned Order is a Show-cause Notice issued to the Petitioner dated 27.01.2005 (Ex.P.1). Para (e) of the Show-cause Notice would indicate that the value of energy pilferage for the period from 16.01.2004 to 15.01.2005 has been assessed at Rs.34,855.09/-. Para (l) of the Impugned Order would indicate that the Respondents have received payment of Rs.35,055.09/-. 3. The above facts would indicate that the pilfered electricity is assessed for the period from 16.01.2004 to 15.01.2005, and the impugned Show-cause Notice dated 27.01.2005 was issued within 12 days from the expiry of the said period. 4. However, it transpires from the docket that this Court granted Interim Protection after having noted that the Petitioner had already deposited an amount of Rs.11,964/- on 19.01.2005. Apart from this, this Court also noted in W.P.M.P. No.5571 of 2016 that the Interim Order was passed having regard to Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, the said provision of law 3 ought not to have been applied in the present case, inasmuch as the demand was raised within 12 days from the period of assessed for pilferage. 5. This apart, since this is only a Show-cause Notice issued by the Respondents on 27.01.2005 (Ex.P.1), it would be appropriate for the Petitioner to submit an explanation in the Proceedings under the impugned Show-cause Notice. 6. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs. 7. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioners have already submitted an explanation on 15.02.2005 (Ex.P.4). In this view of the matter, the Respondents are directed to consider the said memorandum of objections before passing the final order. The final order shall be passed within eight weeks from today. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 07.01.2026 DSV 4 140 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 4348/2016 07.01.2026 DSV 5 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No. WRIT PETITION NO: 4348/2016 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 07.01.2026 GRKP, J Writ Petition is dismissed. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV 6