Telangana High Court
M/S.Jaihind Greenfields Llp vs Gopu Naga Mani on 8 April, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.252, 253, 256 and 257 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Kunal Kakkad, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.252 of 2024.
Mr. P. Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. B. Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.253 of 2024.
Mr. M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2024.
Mr. Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1.
Mr. R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited appears for respondent Nos.3 to 5.
CJ & JAK, J 2 W.A.Nos.252, 253, 256 & 257 of 2024
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In Writ Appeal No.252 of 2024, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge by which I.A.No.4 of 2023 preferred by the appellant seeking impleadment in Writ Petition No.28879 of 2023 filed by respondent No.1 has been rejected.
4. In Writ Appeal No.253 of 2024, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge by which Writ Petition No.28879 of 2023 filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed.
5. In Writ Appeal No.256 of 2024, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 07.03.2024 by which Writ Petition No.28879 of 2023 preferred by respondent No.1 has been allowed. Whereas, in Writ Appeal No.257 of 2024, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge by which I.A.No.2 of 2023 preferred by the appellant seeking CJ & JAK, J 3 W.A.Nos.252, 253, 256 & 257 of 2024 impleadment in Writ Petition No.28879 of 2023 filed by respondent No.1 has been rejected.
6. The common issues arise for consideration in all these Writ Appeals. Therefore, the appeals are heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.
7. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeals briefly stated are that according to respondent No.1, open house plot No.700 measuring 500 sq. yards in Survey Nos.111, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 146/A/1, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159/A, 161, 162, 165, 166, 171, 178, 179, 180, 183, 181, 189, 190, 191 and 181/A situate at Shankar Hills Layout, Vattinagulapally Village, (Rajendranagar Taluk), present Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, devolved on her from her father, who in turn had purchased the same vide Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 16.08.1983 from one Rajannagari Malla Reddy and 27 others. On the aforesaid land, as many as 3328 plots were sold from 1983 to 1986. Respondent No.1 submitted an application on 20.09.2023 for supply of electricity connection which was rejected by CJ & JAK, J 4 W.A.Nos.252, 253, 256 & 257 of 2024 Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'TSSPDCL') on the ground that the same is a disputed land. Thereupon, Writ Petition No.28879 of 2023 was filed.
8. The appellant in Writ Appeal Nos.252 and 253 of 2024 filed I.A.No.4 of 2023 seeking impleadment in the aforesaid Writ Petition.
9. The appellant in Writ Appeal Nos.256 and 257 of 2024 filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 seeking impleadment in the aforesaid Writ Petition.
10. In the aforesaid Writ Petition, I.A.No.3 of 2023 was also filed by proposed respondent Nos.5 to 10 for impleadment.
11. The learned Single Judge vide common order dated 07.03.2024 has dismissed I.A.Nos.2 to 4 of 2023 and has allowed the aforesaid Writ Petition. It was inter alia held that the proposed parties have no title in respect of the land in dispute as the proposed parties did not raise their voice against the persons who cheated them by creating second/third sale CJ & JAK, J 5 W.A.Nos.252, 253, 256 & 257 of 2024 intentionally and they themselves have approached the Court by filing the suits seeking the relief of specific performance of contract. It was further held that the proposed parties in the Writ Petition did not make any endeavour to get the sale deeds registered in their favour since 1983 and therefore, they did not have any locus to intervene in the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 to 4 of 2023 seeking impleadment were rejected and the aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, these intra court appeals have been filed.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the appellants were claiming title on the basis of the sale deed dated 17.03.1997 which was registered in the year 2002. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in recording a finding with regard to title of the property especially in view of the fact that the civil litigation between the parties with regard to the title of the property is pending in different forums.
CJ & JAK, J 6 W.A.Nos.252, 253, 256 & 257 of 2024
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal Nos.256 and 257 of 2024 has submitted that the appellant claims title in respect of the property in question on the basis of a decree for specific performance of contract which has been granted in his favour. It is alternatively submitted that an application which has been filed seeking electricity supply has to be decided in terms of General Terms & Conditions of Supply by TSSPDCL and the question of title cannot be gone into in a Writ Petition.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the decree for specific performance of contract has been suspended in an appeal and therefore, it is not in existence. It is further submitted that the occupiers of the schedule land are poor people and this Court should do justice to them.
15. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.
CJ & JAK, J 7 W.A.Nos.252, 253, 256 & 257 of 2024
16. The dispute between the parties emanates from filing an application seeking electricity connection by respondent No.1. Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission has adopted General Terms & Conditions of Supply approved by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission. The General Terms & Conditions of Supply have been made in pursuance of Clause 21 of the Distribution and Retail Supply Licence granted by the Regulatory Commission and in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. Clause 5 of the aforesaid General Terms & Conditions of Supply deals with supply of electricity. Relevant Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 thereof are extracted below for the facility of reference.
"5. Supply of Electricity 5.1. Company's Duty to Supply The Company shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any Premises, located in his area of supply, give supply of electricity to such Premises in accordance with Section 43 of the Act and the APERC ('Licensees' duty for supply of electricity on request) Regulation, 2004 (No.3 of 2004) as well as the APERC ('Licensees' Standards of Performance) Regulation, 2004 (No.7 of CJ & JAK, J 8 W.A.Nos.252, 253, 256 & 257 of 2024 2004). The applicant must however ensure compliance with the procedure specified in the GTCS.
5.2. Requisition for Supply 5.2.1. Requisition for supply for a new connection or additional load must be submitted in the prescribed format of Application for supply of Electricity at Low Tension (LT) (Appendix I) and the Application for supply of Electricity at High Tension (HT) (Appendix II) as the case may be. The Company will make available the prescribed form free of cost at the offices specified by the Company and will also provide the same on the Company's Internet website for free downloading. Photocopies of a blank application form duly filled in, shall also be accepted by the Company. Any assistance or information required in filling up the application form will be given to the applicant at the offices specified in the Designated Officers' Notification. 5.2.2. The requisition shall be made by the owner or occupier of the premises for which supply is required. The application form complete in all respects and accompanied with the undertaking and prescribed fees, charges and security, shall be submitted at the office of the Officer specified in the Designated Officers Notification. The Company shall verify the application and the enclosed documents at the time of receipt of application, and shall issue a written acknowledgement.
5.2.3 An applicant who is not the owner of the premises he occupies and intending to avail of supply shall submit an Indemnity Bond drawn by the owner of the premises in favour of the company whereby the owner of the premises undertakes to indemnify the company for any loss caused to the company by the applicant (who is the tenant/ occupant of the Premises) arising out of the release of service to the tenant/ occupant. Otherwise he shall be required to pay CJ & JAK, J 9 W.A.Nos.252, 253, 256 & 257 of 2024 three times the normal security deposit apart from providing proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises.
5.2.4. Where the consumer's premises has no frontage on a street and the supply line from the company mains has to go upon, over or under the adjoining premises of any other person (and whether or not the adjoining Premises owned jointly by the consumer and such other person), the consumer shall arrange at his own expense for any necessary way-leave, license or sanction. The Company shall not be bound to afford supply until the way leave or sanction is granted. Any extra expenses incurred in placing the supply line in accordance with the terms of the way leave, license or sanction shall be borne by the consumer. In the event of the way-leave, license or sanction being cancelled or withdrawn, the consumer shall, at his own cost, arrange for any diversion of the service line or the provision of any new service line thus rendered necessary. 5.2.5. It shall not be incumbent on the Company to ascertain the legality or adequacy of way-leave, license or sanction obtained by the consumer.
5.2.6. A consumer requiring supply for industrial or commercial purposes for new or additional loads shall obtain the necessary license or permission or no-objection certificate from the local authority or any other competent authority as might be required under the statute. 5.2.7. After receipt of the complete application form along with required supporting documentation and charges, the Company takes action to release supply within the time frames prescribed in the APERC ('Licensees' duty for supply of electricity on request) Regulation, 2004 (No.3 of 2004) as well as the APERC ('Licensees' Standards of CJ & JAK, J 10 W.A.Nos.252, 253, 256 & 257 of 2024 Performance) Regulation, 2004 (No.7 of 2004) issued by the Commission."
17. Thus, an application submitted by a party seeking electricity connection has to be dealt with on the criteria prescribed under Clause 5 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. The learned Single Judge failed to advert to the aforesaid criteria and has issued a direction to TSSPDCL to grant electricity connection to respondent No.1.
18. Respondent No.1 claims title in respect of the schedule property on the ground that the same has been devolved on her by her father. It is not in dispute that various civil suits, namely, O.S.Nos.251, 393, 527, 528, 531, 533, 554 & 672 of 2023; 76 & 99 of 2024 are pending. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have recorded a finding with regard to title of the parties in respect of the schedule land in a Writ Petition. Even otherwise, the question of title cannot be adjudicated in a Writ Petition (See Sohan Lal v. Union of CJ & JAK, J 11 W.A.Nos.252, 253, 256 & 257 of 2024 India 1 and Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri 2).
19. The application submitted by a person seeking electricity connection has to be decided on the touchstone of criteria laid down in Clause 5 of General Terms & Conditions of Supply by TSSPDCL. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is therefore set aside. TSSPDCL is directed to process the application submitted by respondent No.1 in accordance with the criteria prescribed under Clause 5 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply. Needless to state that the appellants shall also be heard by TSSPDCL besides the application submitted by respondent No.1 for grant of electricity connection. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the claims of the rival parties as the same has to be examined by TSSPDCL. The application preferred by respondent No.1 shall be decided by TSSPDCL by a speaking order within a period of two (2) months from today.
1 AIR 1957 SC 529 2 AIR 1964 SC 1419 CJ & JAK, J 12 W.A.Nos.252, 253, 256 & 257 of 2024
20. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J 8th APRIL, 2024.
kvni/myk