Telangana High Court

Kamlekar Harilal vs The State Of Telangana, on 30 April, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

       HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

               WRIT PETITION No.596 OF 2024

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for

the petitioner, Mr. R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel for TSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent

Nos. 2 to 6.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking

prayer as under:

" ... to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in interfering into the peaceful power consumption of the petitioner name in respect of the Service Connection No.06070262 on the petitioner house bearing No. 12-10-407/7, Beedal Basti, Namalagundu, Secunderabad Hyderabad District and trying to disconnect the power connection of the petitioner without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law is highly illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India apart from violation of provisions of Electricity Act and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 not to interfere into the peaceful power consumption of the petitioner name in respect of the Service Connection No 06070262 on the petitioner house bearing No.12-10-407/7 Beedal Basti, Namalagundu, Secunderabad, Hyderabad District and not to disconnect the power connection of the petitioner to issue the notice and to follow the due process of law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble

SN, J

WP_596_2024

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

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the

petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of House

bearing No.12-10-407/7, Beedal Basti, Namalagundu,

Secunderabad Hyderabad District. The respondent Nos.5

and 6 are interfering in petitioner's peaceful consumption

of power supply and they are trying to disconnect the

petitioner's electrical service connection under the

influence of respondent No.7 who is the own brother of

the petitioner. Hence the writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD

4. The counter affidavit has been filed by the

respondent Nos.2 to 6, para Nos.2, 3, and 4 of the said

counter reads as under:

"2. It is submitted that the service connection bearing SC. No. V6070262 was released in the name of the mother of the petitioner ie, Kamalekar Kamala Bai in the premises bearing H. No. 12-10-407/7, Beedal Basthi, Namalgundu, Secunderabad long back.

SN, J

WP_596_2024

3. It is submitted that the 7th Respondent herein has submitted an application for transfer of the Title of the above referred service connection. The 7th Respondent has filed Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 21.08.2023 which reveals that Mr.Kamelakar Kasiram S/o. Late K. Lakhsman has gifted the H. No. 12-10-407/7, Bedalabasthi, Namalagundu, Secunderabad to Mr. Kamalakar Kiran Kumar, Mr. Kamelakar Lakshman and Mr. Kamelakar Shiv Kumar. The three persons in whose favour the Gift Settlement Deed were executed are the sons of Mr. Kamelakar Kasiram.

4. It is submitted that as per the contents of the Gift Settlement Deed, Kamelakar Kasiram is the absolute owner and possessor of the said house as he has inherited the same from Smt. Kamelakar Kamala Bai. The 7th Respondent has also enclosed copy of Indemnity Bond and No objection cum consent Letter issued by Mr. Shiv Kumar, Lakshman and as the said application was found to be in compliance of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, the title of the service connection was transferred on to the name of the 7th Respondent. If the petitioner has got any grievance he has at a liberty to approach the competent civil court.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5. Mr.R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing

on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6 SUBMITS that respondent

Nos. 2 to 6 will not interfere in any manner with respect to

peaceful consumption of power supply through electrical

service Connection No.06070262 of the petitioner for

SN, J

WP_596_2024

petitioner's house bearing No.12-10-407/7, Beedal Basti,

Namalagundu, secunderabad Hyderabad District.

6. 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:

7. 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_596_2024

8. 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_596_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.

13. 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.

9. 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

SN, J

WP_596_2024

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."

10. Taking into consideration,

(a) The submissions of Mr. R. Vinod Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

Nos.2 to 6,

(b) Duly considering the averments made by the

respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the counter affidavit filed in

the present writ petition,

SN, J

WP_596_2024

Apex Court in Judgment reported in 2022 SCC online SC

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

and Others, (referred to and extracted above)