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. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
AIR 1957 SC 529
AIR 1964 SC 1419
CJ & JAK, J
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
