Telangana High Court

Smt. Chandrika Vaidya vs The State Of Telangana on 8 August, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

       HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

               WRIT PETITION No.14390 OF 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri Mohammad Afzal Khan, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for Energy appearing on behalf of

the 1st respondent, Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned standing

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to

4 and Smt.V.Uma Devi, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking

prayer as under:

".... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents more particularly that of respondent 4 issuing letter vide Lr.No.AE/OP/Bollaram/F./D. No.117/2023-24, dated 29.05.2024 proposing to disconnecting the existing electricity meter connection bearing SC No.AZ132460, USC No.114683714 for house property bearing Municipal No.1-5-1117/1/98&99 (old H.No.5-70/98&99) on plot No.98&99, in survey No.587 to 591, admeasuring 430, Square Yards or 359.48 Sq.Meters, situated at Jonabanda, Alwal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, covered under registered sale deed bearing document No.2434/1997, under the guise of a

SN, J

WP_14390_2024

false complaint lodged by some unknown person B.Kamlakar Rao, without considering the explanation submitted by me on 03.05.2024 to respondents 3 & 4 and without following the due process of law as being illegal, Arbitrary unconstitutional, being violative of Article 21 and 300A, against the Letter and spirit of Catena of judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court as well that of Honorable Supreme Court of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice ...."

3. The case of the petitioner as per the averments

made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the

petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition is as

under:-

a) The specific case of the petitioner that petitioner is the

absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of all that residential

house property bearing Municipal No.1-5-1117/1/98&99 (Old

H.No.5-70/98&99) on plot No.98 & 99, in survey No.587 to

591, admeasuring 430, Square Yards or 359.48 Sq.Meters,

situated at Jonabanda, Alwal Municipality, Ranga Reddy

District, covered under registered sale deed bearing No.

2434/1997, dated 05.08.1997 on the file of SRO Vallabh

Nagar.

SN, J

WP_14390_2024

b) The respondent No.4 issued letter vide

Lr.No.AE/OP/Bollaram/F./D.No.117/2023-24, dated

29.05.2024 proposing to disconnect the existing electricity

meter connection bearing SC No.AZ132460, USC

No.114683714 for house property bearing Municipal No.1-5-

1117/1/98&99 (Old H.No.5-70/98&99) on plot No.98 & 99, in

survey No.587 to 591, admeasuring 430, Square Yards or

359.48 Sq.Meters, situated at Jonabanda, Alwal Municipality,

Ranga Reddy District, covered under registered sale deed

bearing No. 2434/1997 under the guise of a false compliant

lodged by respondent No.6, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4

without considering the explanation submitted by the

petitioner on 03.05.2024 and without following the due

process of law as being illegal, arbitrary un constitutional,

being violative of Articles 21 and 300A against the letter and

spirit of catena of judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court

as well Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Hence, the present

Writ Petition.

4. It is specific case of the petitioner that the 4th

respondent issued impugned letter, dated 29.05.2024

SN, J

WP_14390_2024

proposing to disconnect the existing electricity meter

connection bearing SC No.AZ132460, USC

No.114683714 for house property bearing Municipal

No.1-5-1117/1/98&99 (Old H.No.5-70/98&99) on plot

No.98 & 99, in survey No.587 to 591, admeasuring 430,

Square Yards or 359.48 Sq.Meters, situated at

Jonabanda, Alwal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District,

covered under registered sale deed bearing No.

2434/1997 without considering the explanation

submitted by the petitioner on 03.05.2024 to the

respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and without following the due

procedure.

5. This Court passed interim orders dated 10.06.2024

observing as under:-

The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed not to disconnect the electricity supply for meter with SC No.AZ132460 with USC No.114683714 of house property bearing Municipal No.1-5-1117/1/98 &99 (Old H.No.5-70/98 & 99) on plot No.98 & 99, in survey No.587 to 591, admeasuring 430 Square Yards or 359.48 Square Meters, situated at Jonabanda, Alwal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District till 14.06.2024.

SN, J

WP_14390_2024

Accordingly, this petition is ordered.

6. Learned standing counsel Sri R.Vinod Reddy

submits that the writ petition could be disposed of

directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider the

explanation of the petitioner dated 03.05.2024 by

providing an opportunity of personal hearing to both

the petitioner and also the 5th respondent who is

representing the complainant i.e., the 6th respondent

herein and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable

period.

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

7. 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

SN, J

WP_14390_2024

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 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."

8. 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

SN, J

WP_14390_2024

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."

9. 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

SN, J

WP_14390_2024

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.

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.

10. 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

SN, J

WP_14390_2024

(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 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."

SN, J

WP_14390_2024

11. It has been agreed and represented by the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

and also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th

respondent that the petitioner and 5th respondent both

would cooperate and put-forth their pleas in support of

their respective cases and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4

shall be directed to consider the same in accordance to

law and take a decision in the matter Accordingly, this

consent order is being passed.

12. Taking into consideration:

a) The view of the Apex Court in the judgments

(referred to and extracted above)

i. K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State of Electricity Board

and others reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

ii. Chandu Khamaru Vs. Nayan Malik and Others

reported in (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 314

iii. between Dilip (dead) through LRs Vs. Satish

and others reported in 2022 LiveLaw 570

b) The submissions put-forth by both the learned

counsel on record

SN, J

WP_14390_2024

c) The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to

provide an opportunity of personal hearing to both the

petitioner and 5th respondent who is representing the

6th respondent/complainant and the respondents are

directed to decide the subject issue duly considering

the explanation of the petitioner dated 03.05.2024 in

accordance to law in the light of the observations of the

Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and

extracted above) and take a decision in the matter in

accordance to law within a period of three (03) weeks

from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and

duly communicate the decision to the petitioner.