{"id":75627,"date":"2006-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006"},"modified":"2017-11-17T15:49:12","modified_gmt":"2017-11-17T10:19:12","slug":"transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Transmission Corporation Of A.P. &#8230; vs M\/S Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill on 20 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Transmission Corporation Of A.P. &#8230; vs M\/S Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill on 20 February, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Arijit Pasayat, R.V. Raveendran<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2137 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nTransmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd and Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/s Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/02\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; R.V. RAVEENDRAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT, J<\/p>\n<p>\tChallenge in this appeal is to the legality of the judgment rendered<br \/>\nby a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The controversy<br \/>\nlies within a very narrow compass and, therefore, the factual position<br \/>\nneeds to be noted in brief. The appellant No.1-corporation is the<br \/>\nsuccessor company of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity<br \/>\nBoard (in short the &#8216;Board&#8217;).\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe business premises of the respondent were inspected by the<br \/>\nofficials of the appellant No.1-Corporation. The respondent was a low<br \/>\ntension category consumer. On 10.9.1993 a provisional assessment was<br \/>\nmade alleging pilferage of energy and a sum of Rs.27,610\/- was<br \/>\ndemanded. It was indicated to the respondent that if it wanted to avoid<br \/>\ndisconnection it should deposit 50% of the amount fixed on provisional<br \/>\nassessment. The same was deposited. On 15.12.1993 a show cause<br \/>\nnotice was issued proposing to charge Rs.1,41,270\/- on final<br \/>\nassessment. The respondent filed its objection. On 29.9.1998 the final<br \/>\nassessment was made confirming the amount indicated in the show<br \/>\ncause notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAppeal as provided under the Terms and Conditions of Supply of<br \/>\nElectrical Energy of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board was filed.<br \/>\nThe said Terms and Conditions of Supply were notified by the Board in<br \/>\nexercise of powers conferred by Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,<br \/>\n1948.  A prayer was made to grant opportunity to cross examine certain<br \/>\nofficials of the appellant No.1-Corporation on the basis of whose<br \/>\nstatements the final assessment was made. By order dated 6.3.1999 the<br \/>\nrequest was declined on the ground that there was no provision for such<br \/>\na prayer being accepted. A Writ Petition was filed before the High Court.<br \/>\nWhile hearing the matter on the issue, learned Single Judge noted that<br \/>\nthere were inconsistent views expressed by different learned Single<br \/>\nJudges. This is how the matter was referred to a Division Bench. By the<br \/>\nimpugned order the High Court noted that there was no dispute that the<br \/>\namount on being determined by the final assessment on the ground of<br \/>\nalleged pilferage if recovered would result in civil consequences.<br \/>\nTherefore, the enquiry being quasi judicial in nature fair play is required<br \/>\nand fair play implies the fair opportunity which includes cross<br \/>\nexamination of persons whose statements were going to be relied by the<br \/>\nauthorities. The High Court accordingly held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;In the instant case, if the authorities are relying only<br \/>\non accounts and not on any statements or reports,<br \/>\nmay be the cross examination of any person who has<br \/>\nprepared the accounts is not necessary. But if any<br \/>\nstatement or report is made pointing out the act of<br \/>\npilferage, the petitioner shall be entitled to call the said<br \/>\nperson for cross examination&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court&#8217;s<br \/>\nview about the desirability of granting opportunity for cross examination<br \/>\nis not supportable in law. According to him, the officers have no personal<br \/>\ninterest in the matter and, therefore, their statements are to be<br \/>\nconsidered in the proper perspective by the authority making the final<br \/>\nassessment. There was no question of any cross examination of such<br \/>\npersons. Strong reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/63388\/\">Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board and Ors.<\/a> (1998<br \/>\n(4) SCC 470), more particularly, paragraphs 39 and 43.  With reference<br \/>\nto a decision of this Court in The New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. v The<br \/>\nNew Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd. (1957 SCR 98) it was submitted that<br \/>\nthe Terms and Conditions of Supply do not envisage grant of an<br \/>\nopportunity for cross examination as the procedure provided for does not<br \/>\ncontemplate of anything like recording oral evidence and receiving<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence in the normal way as in Courts of law. What is<br \/>\nnecessary is granting a fair and proper hearing and this has been done.<br \/>\nWith reference to another decision of this Court in Nagendra Nath Bora<br \/>\nand Anr. V Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Ors.<br \/>\n(1958 SCR 1240) it was submitted that as in the said case, the rules in<br \/>\nthe present case make no provisions for the reception of evidence oral or<br \/>\ndocumentary and even for issuing of any notice; therefore also the High<br \/>\nCourt was not right.  Finally, with reference to a decision of this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/894748\/\">The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad<br \/>\nand Anr.<\/a> (1966 Suppl. SCR 401) it was submitted that the right to<br \/>\nhearing did not include the right to cross examine and the right must<br \/>\ndepend upon the circumstances.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that<br \/>\nClause 39.9.2 provides for grant of a &#8220;reasonable opportunity&#8221; to the<br \/>\nconsumer. If the statements of the officers are to be relied upon without<br \/>\nbeing tested by cross-examination, the consumer will be highly<br \/>\nprejudiced and, therefore, the right to cross-examine them is in built in<br \/>\nclause 39.9.2 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply. Clause 39.9.2<br \/>\ndeals with final assessment. Sub-clauses (1) to (3) thereof are extracted<br \/>\nbelow for ready reference :\n<\/p>\n<p>39.9.1\tAfter the provisional assessment notice is served upon<br \/>\nthe consumer as mentioned in clause 39.3 thereof.<br \/>\nThe Officer authorized in this behalf by the Board (see<br \/>\nstatement referred to in clause 39.4 above) shall issue<br \/>\na show cause notice in the forms prescribed therefore<br \/>\nadvising the consumer to file his representation, if any,<br \/>\nwithin 30 days from the receipt of the notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>39.9.2\tThe said officer of the Board shall, after the expiry of<br \/>\nthe aforesaid notice period, enquire into the matter<br \/>\nand after giving reasonable opportunity to the<br \/>\nconsumer and taking into account all relevant facts<br \/>\nand circumstances shall decide whether the consumer<br \/>\nhas committed malpractice or pilferage of energy and if<br \/>\nso satisfied proceed to assess to the best of his<br \/>\njudgment, the loss sustained by the Board on account<br \/>\nof such malpractice or pilferage of energy by the<br \/>\nconsumer.  The consumer may be represented by an<br \/>\nadvocate or any other person at the time of personal<br \/>\nhearing provided the consumer files proper<br \/>\nVakalatnama or power of Attorney as the case may be.<br \/>\n39.9.3\tThe final assessing authority shall then pass an order<br \/>\nsetting out his conclusions and the reasons thereof<br \/>\nand communicate a copy of the order to the consumer<br \/>\nand demand the amount, if any, due from the<br \/>\nconsumer on the basis of such order after giving credit<br \/>\nto the amounts paid by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAt this juncture, it is to be noted that in paragraph 39 of<br \/>\nHyderabad Vanaspathi&#8217;s case (supra) what was observed by this Court<br \/>\nwas in relation to disconnection and for that purpose reliance was placed<br \/>\non an earlier decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/15267\/\">M.P. Electricity Board v. Harsh<br \/>\nWood Products<\/a> (1996 (4) SCC 522). At the stage of issuing notice of dis-<br \/>\nconnection there is no question of granting any opportunity to the<br \/>\nconsumer. On the basis of prima facie view of the concerned officer,<br \/>\nnotice of disconnection is issued. In that context it was held both in M.P.<br \/>\nelectricity Board&#8217;s and Hyderabad Vanaspathi&#8217;s cases (supra) that the<br \/>\nprocedure laid down was not in violation of the principles of natural<br \/>\njustice. So far as paragraphs 43 of Hyderabad Vanaspathi&#8217;s case (supra)<br \/>\nis concerned, that related to the absence of personal lis or interest of<br \/>\nadjudicator. In that background it was held that merely because the<br \/>\ndepartmental authority was adjudicating there was no prejudice<br \/>\ninvolved. Those principles are not of any assistance in the present case.<br \/>\nIn the case at hand without even granting of an opportunity to the<br \/>\nrespondent, the final order of assessment was passed. Merely taking note<br \/>\nof the objection filed cannot be said to be compliance of the provisions<br \/>\ncontained in Clause 39.9.2. Therefore, the respondent had made a prayer<br \/>\nbefore the appellate authority. The parameters of the principles of<br \/>\nnatural justice cannot be covered by any straight-jacket formula. It<br \/>\nwould vary depending upon the circumstances involved. It is true that<br \/>\nthe Terms and Conditions of Supply did not contemplate anything like<br \/>\nrecording oral or documentary evidence in the way as is normally done in<br \/>\nthe Courts of law. But the Clause 39.9.2 itself provides for a reasonable<br \/>\nopportunity being granted. What would be a reasonable opportunity<br \/>\nwould also depend upon the fact situation.  In Advanced Law Lexicon by<br \/>\nP. Ramanatha Aiyar (3rd Edition, Vol.4 page 3959 and 3968) the word<br \/>\n&#8220;reasonable&#8221; has been described as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t&#8220;(i)\tWhat is &#8216;fair&#8217; and proper under the circumstances.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tThe expression &#8220;reasonable&#8221; is not susceptible of<br \/>\na clear and precise definition. A thing which is<br \/>\nreasonable in one case may not be reasonable in<br \/>\nanother. Reasonable does not mean the best, it means<br \/>\nmost suitable in a given set of circumstances.\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii) There is no point on which a greater amount of<br \/>\ndecision is to be found in Courts of law and equity<br \/>\nthan as to what is reasonable : It is impossible a priori<br \/>\nto state  what is reasonable as such in all cases.  You<br \/>\nmust have the particular facts of each case established<br \/>\nbefore you can ascertain what is meant by reasonable<br \/>\nunder the circumstance  Lord Romilly. M.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>Labouchere v. Dawson, (1872), LR 13 Eq.CA.325.\n<\/p>\n<p>In Khem Chand v. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 200) a Constitution<br \/>\nBench of this court explained the meaning of &#8216;reasonable opportunity&#8217;<br \/>\nthus in the context of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of the, 1950 (in<br \/>\nshort the &#8216;Constitution):\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tan opportunity to deny his guilt and<br \/>\nestablish his innocence.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tan opportunity to defend himself by cross-\n<\/p>\n<p>examining the witnesses produced against<br \/>\nhim and by examining himself or any<br \/>\nother witnesses in support of his defence;\n<\/p>\n<p>and finally<\/p>\n<p>(c)\tan opportunity to make his representation<br \/>\nas to why the proposed punishment<br \/>\nshould not be inflicted on him.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The nature of adjudication under Clause 39.9.2 of Terms and<br \/>\nConditions of Supply is some what different from an enquiry under<br \/>\nArticle 311(2) of the Constitution.   It cannot be laid down as a rule of<br \/>\nuniversal application that whenever the statement of departmental officer<br \/>\nis pressed into service for the purpose of adjudication, a right of cross<br \/>\nexamination is in built. On the other hand,   what was said in Bakshi&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase (supra) has also really no relevance because that was a case where<br \/>\nno penal consequences were involved and the Commission was only a<br \/>\nfact finding Commission and, therefore, is clearly distinguishable  of<br \/>\nfacts.\n<\/p>\n<p>In order to establish that the cross examination is necessary, the<br \/>\nconsumer has to make out a case for the same. Merely stating that the<br \/>\nstatement of an officer is being utilized for the purpose of adjudication<br \/>\nwould not be sufficient in all cases. If an application is made requesting<br \/>\nfor grant of an opportunity to cross examine any official, the same has to<br \/>\nbe considered by the adjudicating authority who shall have to either<br \/>\ngrant the request or pass a reasoned order if he chooses to reject the<br \/>\napplication.  In that event an adjudication being concluded, it shall be<br \/>\ncertainly open to the consumer to establish before the appellate authority<br \/>\nas to how he has been prejudiced by the refusal to grant opportunity to<br \/>\ncross-examine any official. As has been rightly noted by the High Court<br \/>\nin the impugned judgment where the reliance is only on accounts<br \/>\nprepared by a person, cross examination is not necessary. But where it is<br \/>\nbased on reports alleging tampering or pilferage, the fact situation may<br \/>\nbe different. Before asking for cross examination the consumer may be<br \/>\ngranted an opportunity to look into the documents on which the<br \/>\nadjudication is proposed. In that event, he will be in a position to know<br \/>\nas to the author of which statement is necessary to be cross-examined.<br \/>\nThe applications for cross-examination are not to be filed in routine<br \/>\nmanner and equally also not to be disposed of by adjudicator in casual or<br \/>\nroutine manner. There has to be application of mind by him. Similarly,<br \/>\nas noted above, the consumer has to show as to why cross examination<br \/>\nis necessary.\n<\/p>\n<p> In the instant case the respondent had not indicated as to why the<br \/>\ncross-examination was necessary.  If a fresh application is made, the<br \/>\nsame shall be duly considered by the appellate authority, keeping in view<br \/>\nthe principles indicated above. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No<br \/>\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Transmission Corporation Of A.P. &#8230; vs M\/S Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill on 20 February, 2006 Author: Arijit Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, R.V. Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2137 of 2000 PETITIONER: Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd and Ors RESPONDENT: M\/s Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/02\/2006 BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75627","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Transmission Corporation Of A.P. ... vs M\/S Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill on 20 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Transmission Corporation Of A.P. ... vs M\/S Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill on 20 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-17T10:19:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Transmission Corporation Of A.P. &#8230; vs M\\\/S Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill on 20 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-17T10:19:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2061,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Transmission Corporation Of A.P. ... vs M\\\/S Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill on 20 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-17T10:19:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Transmission Corporation Of A.P. &#8230; vs M\\\/S Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill on 20 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Transmission Corporation Of A.P. ... vs M\/S Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill on 20 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Transmission Corporation Of A.P. ... vs M\/S Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill on 20 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-17T10:19:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Transmission Corporation Of A.P. &#8230; vs M\/S Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill on 20 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-17T10:19:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006"},"wordCount":2061,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006","name":"Transmission Corporation Of A.P. ... vs M\/S Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill on 20 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-17T10:19:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/transmission-corporation-of-a-p-vs-ms-sri-rama-krishna-rice-mill-on-20-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Transmission Corporation Of A.P. &#8230; vs M\/S Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill on 20 February, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75627","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75627"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75627\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}