Telangana High Court
Mr.Chettukindi Shivraj Alias Kammari ... vs The State Of Telangana on 22 July, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.19334 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri Sarang Afzulpurkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri. R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5.
2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
" ... to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.5 in rejecting application of the petitioners for granting Electricity for agriculture supply vide proceedings dated 18.05.2024 vide D.No.236/2024- 2025 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 of Constitution of India as well as in violation of the orders of the Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 6378 of 2024 dated 19.3.2024 and I.A. No. 2 of 2024 dated 19.04.2024 and may be pleased to issue consequential direction to the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to grant the Electricity connection for agriculture supply to the petitioners in the said land admeasuring Ac.1.18 ½ guntas in Sy.No. 716/2/3, 2 SN, J WP_19334_2024 Edulavagu in Sadasivpet, Sanga Reddy District and pass...".
3. Learned Standing Counsel Sri R. Vinod Reddy submits that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner vide No.NR660233827353 dated 14.12.2023 in accordance to law within a reasonable period.
PERSUED THE RECORD.
4. The order impugned dated 18.05.2024 of the Asst. Divisional Engineer, (Operation), TSSPDCL, Sadasivpet reads as under:
Sub-TSSPDCL Operation Sub Divasion Sadasivpet - Release of Agricultural supply in Agricultural land at Sy No.716/2/3, in Sadasivpet Town of Sadasivpet Sub Division-Reg.
Ref (1) NR660233827353, Dt:14/12/2023. (2) Your representation letter dated:26/04/2024 (3) Law Attache Opinion Letter, Dt: 16/05/2024.
&&& With reference to the above, you are registered an application in CSC/Sadasivpet for release of 01No. 5HP Agriculture supply at Sy No.716/2/3, Edulavagu in Sadasivpet Town and Section of Sadasivpet Sub Division vide CSC registration No.NR660233827353, Dt: 14/12/2023.
3
SN, J WP_19334_2024 Further you (K.Nikitha & K.Shivaraj, R/o.Sadasivpet) are given representation stated that to reconsider the application for releasing of supply of electricity to agriculture land in Sy.No.716/2/3, Sadasivpet Town, within two weeks as per Hon'ble High Court order vide IA No.02 of 2024 in Writ Petition No.6378 of 2024.
The undersigned was submitted letter to Law attaché through proper channel for seeking of legal opinion for release of 01No. 5HP Agriculture supply to K.Shivaraj at Sy No.716/2/3 in Sadasivpet Town in view of civil dispute.
The law Attache/Corporate Office/TSSPDCL/ Hyderabad has given opinion that power supply as requested by one of the parties to suit can not be released till the disposal of suit, in case of urgency the parties may be requested to file appropriate petition in OS No.480/2020 and obtain order for release of service connection in the subject property.
Hence your application for release of 01No. 5HP Agriculture supply to K.Shivaraj at Sy No.716/2/3 in Sadasivpet Town was not considered as per legal opinion".
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that based on the legal opinion with regard to the subject issue and in view of the civil disputes the electiricty service connection had been denied to the petitioner herein and the same is illegal.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner further submits that the order of Status Quo dated 4 SN, J WP_19334_2024 17.08.2020 passed in I.A. No. 1135 of 2020 in O.S. No. 480 of 2020 pertaining to interim injunction orders in favour of the petitioners thereunder restraining the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 thereunder in O.S. No. 480 of 2020 i.e., 2nd petitioner herein and one P.Venkateswar from alienating the subject property is all that parcel of agricultural land in Sy.No.716/2 admeasuring Ac.2-37 guntas situated at Sadasivapet, but the said order did not mean denial of electricity service connection to the petitioner and therefore the order impugned dated 18.05.2024 needs to be set aside in the interest of justice.
7. Learned Standing Counsel Sri R. Vinod Reddy does not dispute the said submission made on behalf of the petitioner. A bare perusal of the proceedings dated 18.05.2024 clearly indicates that the request of the petitioner for grant of electricity connection for agriculture supply to the petitioner's land to an extent of Ac.1.18 ½ guntas in Sy.No. 716/2/3, Edulavagu in Sadasivpet, Sanga Reddy District had been denied on the ground of pending civil disputes, between the parties, and admittedly the 2nd petitioner is in possession of 5 SN, J WP_19334_2024 the subject property since in Suit O.S.No.480 of 2020 filed by the plaintiffs thereunder on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, a specific prayer is sought for restraining the petitioner herein and one P.Venkateshwar from alienating the said suit schedule property.
8. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as under:
"Section 43. (Duty to supply on request) (1)[Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution] licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply:
Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission: 1 Subs. by Act 26 of 2007, Sec.8 for the words "Every distribution"
Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.
1[Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, "application" means the application complete in all 6 SN, J WP_19334_2024 respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances.] (2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub- section (1) :
Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission.
(3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default."
9. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453 in between K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State of Electricity Board and others passed in Civil Appeal Nos.2109 and 2110 of 2004, dated 19.05.2023, observed as under:
"The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities."7
SN, J WP_19334_2024
10. The Apex Court in its Judgment reported in (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 314 in between Chandu Khamaru Vs. Nayan Malik and Others passed in Civil Appeal No.7572 of 2011 dated 02.09.2011 observed as under:
Sub-section (1) of Section 42 and sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are quoted herein below:
"42. Duties of distribution licensees and open access-(1) It shall be the duty of a distribution licensee to develop and maintain an efficient co-ordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act."
"43. Duty to supply on request-(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply."
7. It will be clear from sub-section (1) of Section 42 that every distribution licensee has a duty to develop and maintain an efficient co-ordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 43 provides that every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. These provisions in the Electricity Act, 2003 make it amply clear that a distribution licensee has a statutory duty to supply electricity to an owner or occupier of any premises located in the area of supply of electricity of the distribution licensee, if such owner or occupier of the premises applies for it, and correspondingly every owner or occupier of any premises has a statutory right to apply for and obtain such electric supply from the distribution licensee.
8
SN, J WP_19334_2024
10. ...The case of the appellant, on the other hand, is that this passage is not a private passage of respondent Nos.1 to 3 but is a common passage and therefore an electric line can be drawn through this common passage. This dispute will have to be resolved in Civil Suit No.83 of 2004 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah, or in any other suit, but pending resolution of this dispute between the parties, the appellant cannot be denied supply of electricity to his house.
11. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned order of the Division Bench and dispose of the Writ Petition of respondent nos.1 to 3 with the direction that the distribution licensee will find out whether there is any other way in which electric line can be drawn for supply of electricity to the house of the appellant, other than the disputed passage in Dag Nos.406, 407 and 409. If there is no other way to supply electricity to the house of the appellant, the distribution licensee will follow the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for carrying out the work for supply of electricity to the house of the appellant.
11. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2022 LiveLaw 570 in between Dilip (dead) through LRs Vs. Satish and others passed in CRLA No.810 of 2022 (arising out of Special Leave petition (CRL)No.8917 of 2019), dated 13.05.2022 observed as under:
"It is not disputed that applicant No.1 has obtained the connection of electricity. The submissions made show that applicant No. 1 is in possession of the shop and he is running a saloon shop. It is clear that he needs electricity for doing this business, but the first informant was not giving no objection certificate. He took every step to see that applicant No. 1 does not get supply of electricity for his business. It is not the case of the Applicant No. 1 that as per the agreement between him and landlord, the landlord is bound to supply the 9 SN, J WP_19334_2024 electricity. Further, the Electricity Board seeks no objection of landlord only to verify that the possession of the tenant is authorised. There is no other purpose behind obtaining such no objection from landlord. The landlord cannot prevent the tenant from availing such facility at his own cost.
It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question. Be that as it may, the High Court clearly fell in error in quashing the FIR. It cannot be said that fabrication and/or creation of records and/or forging a signature does not constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The High Court completely overlooked the definition of cheating in Section 415 of the IPC. It is however made clear that electricity supply granted, shall not be discontinued, subject to compliance by the Respondents of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity by the electricity department including payment of charges for the same."
12. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio laid down by the Courts in various judgments referred to and extracted above, the writ petition is ordered as prayed for and the impugned order vide Lr.No. ADE/OP/SSPET/F.No.Court case/D.No.236/2024-25, 10 SN, J WP_19334_2024 dated 18.05.2024 passed by the Asst. Divisional Engineer, (Operation), TSSPDCL, Sadasivpet is set aside and the respondent No.5 is directed to forthwith reconsider petitioners application NR66023382735 dated 14.12.2023 for release of electricity to petitioners agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.18 ½ guntas in Sy.No.716/2/3, Edulavagu in Sadasivpet, Sangareddy District, in the light of the observations made by the Courts in the various Judgments (referred to and extracted above), within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the order and pass appropriate orders on petitioners application dated 14.12.2023 and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________ MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Date: 22nd July, 2024 Skj/HFM