Telangana High Court

Sri Peer Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana on 9 July, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

         HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
              WRIT PETITION No.17783 OF 2024
ORDER:

Heard Mr.Mekala Santosh Kumar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned

Government Pleader for Energy, appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1 and Mr.R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent

Nos.2 to 4.

PERUSED THE RECORD

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the

prayer as follows:

"To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent rejecting the application for release of new service electricity connection vide Lr.No.AE/OP/ SHADNAGAR/E.No.- /D.No.607 dated 23.12.2022 without assigning proper reasons is illegal, arbitrary and violation of electricity act and under Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents to release the LT Cat-II new service connection having NR No.NR51522774022 forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice".

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

purchased the plot Nos.48 and 49 in Survey No.9 of Farooqnagar

Village, Shadnagar, Rangareddy District, vide registered sale

SN, J

deed dated 21.08.2019 and on the strength of said sale deed, the

petitioner filed Suit in O.S.No.242 of 2021 for permanent

injunction and also filed I.A.No.605 of 2021 in the said suit

seeking ad-interim injunction before the learned Junior Civil

Judge, Shadnagar. The Court below has dismissed the said

I.A.No.605 of 2021, vide order dated 28.10.2021. Aggrieved by

the same, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.3 of 2021 before the

learned Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar seeking injunction pending

adjudication of the suit. The Court below has granted temporary

injunction in favour of the petitioner on 19.10.2022. Later, on

30.11.2022, the petitioner applied for new LT Cat-II electricity

Service connection vide No.NR51522774022, immediately one

Smt. Anisha Fatima made a complaint before respondent No.4

alleging that her husband has purchased the land to an extent of

471 square yards by way of registered sale deed along with one

Sir Gopal Krishna vide registered document dated 04.02.2008.

By virtue of relinquishment deed, dated 09.04.2021, Smt. Anisha

Fatima is the absolute owner of the entire land of 471 square

yards. Based on the representation dated 09.04.2021,

respondent No.4 rejected the petitioner's application. Aggrieved

by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

SN, J

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner's application seeking release of the

LT Cat-II new service connection having NR No.NR51522774022 has

been rejected on the ground that the settlement of dispute of the title

by the competent Court is pending.

5. Mr.R. Vinod Kumar, learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that

as per Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, an owner and occupier is

entitled for supply of electricity service connection.

6. Perused the record.

7. The impugned proceedings vide Lr.No.AE/OP/

SHADNAGAR/F.No:/D.No.607, dated 23.12.2022 passed by

respondent No.4 is extracted hereinunder:

"With the above cited reference letter (1) received from the Law Attache given the legal opinion stating that "New service connection to the subject premises cannot be released till the settlement of dispute of title by the competent Court.

In view of above, we cannot release the LT Cat II new service having NR Number NR515227744022 applied by Sri Peer Ahmed S/o Shabbir Ahmed, Sy.No.9, Plot:-48, Islampoora Colony, Shadnagar, Farooq Nagar Mandal to the subject premises till the settlement of dispute of title by the competent Court."

8. A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings dated

23.12.2022 vide Lr.No.AE/OP/SHADNAGAR/E.No.-/D.No.607 of

respondent No.4 rejecting the application of the petitioner for

release of new electricity service connection without assigning

any reasons only indicates that the impugned order, dated

SN, J

23.12.2022 is passed on the advice or on the legal opinion

rendered on the subject issue stating that the new electricity

service connection to the subject premises cannot be released

till the settlement of disputes of title by the competent Court.

This Court opines that the said plea is unreasonable and cannot

be sustained.

9. 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:

10. 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."

11. The Apex Court in its Judgment reported in (2011) 12

Supreme Court Cases 314 in between Chandu Khamaru Vs.

SN, J

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.

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

SN, J

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.

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 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.

12. 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 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

SN, J

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."

13. Taking into consideration:

(a) The submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel.

(b) Taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court

in the judgments reported in

(i) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453 in between K.C.Ninan Vs.

Kerala State of Electricity Board

(ii) (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 314 in between

Chandu Khamaru Vs. Nayan Malik and Others,

(iii) 2022 LiveLaw 570 in between Dilip (dead) through

LRs Vs. Satish and others (referred to and extracted

above),

(c) Duly considering Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003

and

SN, J

(d) Duly considering that the impugned order is

unreasoned order,

The order impugned issued by the 4th respondent

vide Lr.No.AE/OP/SHADNAGAR/F.N:/D.N:607, dated

23.12.2022 is set aside and the Respondent No.4 is

directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner

seeking release of the LT Cat-II new service connection

having NR No.NR51522774022 in petitioner's subject

property in Sy.No.9, Plot No.48 Islampoora Colony,

Shadnagar, Farooq Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order upon the petitioner complying the

required terms and conditions as per the Rules.