Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd against a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court concerning the final assessment of energy pilferage against M/s Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill. The appellant, as the successor of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, had conducted a provisional assessment on 10.9.1993, alleging pilferage and demanding Rs. 27,610, which the respondent paid to avoid disconnection. A show cause notice was issued on 15.12.1993, proposing a final assessment of Rs. 1,41,270, to which the respondent objected. The final assessment was confirmed on 29.9.1998, leading to an appeal where the respondent requested the opportunity to cross-examine the officials whose statements were used in the assessment. The request was denied, prompting the respondent to file a writ petition. The High Court noted the need for fair play in quasi-judicial proceedings, allowing cross-examination if statements alleging pilferage were relied upon. The appellants contended that cross-examination was not necessary as the officers had no personal interest and the procedure did not provide for it. The court analyzed various precedents and emphasized that while the Terms and Conditions of Supply did not require recording evidence as in courts, a reasonable opportunity must be granted. The court concluded that the consumer must demonstrate the necessity for cross-examination, and if a fresh application is made, it should be considered by the appellate authority. The appeal was disposed of without costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to Cross-Examine - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 49 - The court held that the consumer is entitled to a fair opportunity which may include cross-examination of officials if their statements are relied upon for the final assessment of energy pilferage. The High Court's ruling was upheld, emphasizing that the nature of the inquiry is quasi-judicial and fair play is required (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the consumer has the right to cross-examine officials whose statements were relied upon for the final assessment of energy pilferage.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity which may include cross-examination if statements alleging pilferage are relied upon. The court directed that any application for cross-examination should be considered by the adjudicating authority, and the appeal was disposed of without costs.
Law Points
- natural justice
- fair hearing
- cross-examination
- provisional assessment
- final assessment
