Telangana High Court

Daravath Lakshmi vs The State Of Telangana, on 25 April, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

       HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

           WRIT PETITION No.10289 OF 2024

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Dunna Ambedkar, learned counsel for

the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Energy, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and

Mr. R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

TSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking

prayer as under:

" ... to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in issuing electricity bill to the petitioner and restore the power supply to the electricity connections Service Nos. 4240128491, 4240128492 and 2404133774 in Sy. No. 676 situated at Kodada Town and Mandal Suryapet District is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the agreement evidence on record violation of the principles of natural justice and as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India set aside the same consequently direct the respondents to restore the electrical connection to the petitioners house and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble

SN, J

WP_10289_2024

Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner

entered into lease agreement dated 21.11.2019 with one

Kunduri Aruna over the land in Sy.No.676 admeasuring 520

sq. yards (vacant land) situated at Kodada Town and Mandal

Suryapet District, for a period of five years i.e from

01.12.2019 to 30.11.2024, wherein the petitioner is running

a restaurant in the said premises with electricity connection

service Nos. 4240128491, 4240128492 and 2404133774 and

has been paying electricity charges regularly. Taking

advantage of the disputes between the petitioner and the

said Kunduri Aruna (lessor), the respondent No.5 herein had

disconnected the electricity connections of the petitioner's

restaurant. The petitioner had approached the authorities of

the respondents and requested to restore electricity.

However, the same was not considered. Hence the writ

petition.

4. Mr. R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 on

SN, J

WP_10289_2024

instructions submits that the dispute is between the

owner and the tenant of the subject premises and

therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as

prayed for.

5. 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:

6. The Apex 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:

"Electricity Act, 2003; Section 43 - 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."

SN, J

WP_10289_2024

7. 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.7575 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-ordinate 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.

12. The case of the appellant, on the other hand, is that this passage is not a private passage of respondent Nos.1 to 3

SN, J

WP_10289_2024

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.

8. 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 electricity. Further, the Electricity Board seeks no objection of landlord only to verify that the possession

SN, J

WP_10289_2024

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."

9. (a) Taking into consideration the submissions of

learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos.2 to5,

(b) Duly taking into consideration the view taken by

the Apex Court in Judgment reported in 2022 SCC

online SC 810 in between Dilip (Dead) through Lrs., Vs.

Satish and Others,

SN, J

WP_10289_2024

Supreme Court Cases 314 in between Chandu Khamaru

Vs. Nayan Malik and Others

(d) Duly considering Section 43(i) of the Electricity Act,