Telangana High Court

B.Pruthviraju vs Telangana State Souther Power ... on 24 June, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

         HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


            WRIT PETITION No.15736 of 2024


ORDER:

Heard Mr.K.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr.R.Vinod

Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL,

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 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 Respondent Nos.2 to 5 more particularly the action of the 5th respondent in not providing the electricity connection to the petitioner's property despite making the estimate and sanction vide Estimate No.E-2024-90-01- 12-02-005 dt.27.04.2024 by erecting 9.1 meter pole at the petitioner's property situated near Sy.no.66/AA and 66/U at Nandigama Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District on the pretext of pendency of civil suit at the instance of the 6th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and as Violative of Article 14 and 21 of constitution of India and also violative of section 43 of the Electricity act, 2003 and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to forthwith Provide the electricity connection to the pole erected by the department at the petitioner's property without reference of the pendency of the Civil Suit as mentioned in the Impugned Letter of the 5th respondent dt.27.04.2024 signed on 20.05.2024 and

SN,J WP_15736_2024

to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the

averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed

in support of the present writ petition is as follows:

It is submitted by the GPA Holder of the petitioner, who

is the mother of the petitioner herein that, the property is

owned by the petitioner who is her son to the extent of half

share in the open land in Sy.No.66/AA and 66/U admeasuring

2760 sq. yards at Nandigama Village, Patancheru Mandal,

Sangareddy District by virtue of a Registered Gift Deed

bearing Doc.No.14417 of 2023 dt.25.08.2023. As the

petitioner went to UK for studies, before going there,

executed a GPA in her favour on 26.01.2024 and therefore, to

look after the property and the present dispute, she is filing

present affidavit.

ii) The G.P.A. Holder of the petitioner has requested for

an electricity connection by erecting the poles by making an

application vide NR677243982073 on 14.04.2024 to the

Respondents herein for execution of the work to erect a pole

SN,J WP_15736_2024

and to give the electricity connection to their property. Along

with the application she made the necessary payments for the

estimate cost and the same is not under dispute. The

respondents herein through the 5th respondent, having

considered their application, conducted the enquiry and made

the estimate with regard to erection of pole at the required

premises of the property and sanctioned the same vide

Estimate No.E-2024-90-01-12-02-005 dt.27.04.2024 on their

request on 27.04.2024 and the pole was erected at the

schedule property the connection was withheld.

iii) Further it is stated that, under the impugned letter of

the 5th respondent vide Ref.No.DEE/OP/SNG/COMM/F.No./LT/

D.No.253/2024-25, dt.27.04.2024 signed on 20.05.2024

stating that, one M.K.Prabhakar who is the husband of the 6th

respondent herein has called him and made a complaint that

an illegal pole is erected on BT Road which is in his patta land

of Sy.No.66 and therefore, as her neighbour has raised an

objection, directed her to settle the same as a precondition to

give the supply.

iv) It is further averred that, the 6th respondent herein

without having any right seems to have lodged the complaint

SN,J WP_15736_2024

against the petitioner and his G.P.A Holder and allegedly filed

O.S.No.198/2024 through his wife on the file of Hon'ble Junior

Civil Judge, Sangareddy for perpetual injunction on the basis

that by virtue of the erection of the pole on the BT Road, the

cart road is blocked and therefore sought for injunction not to

interfere and not to construct any road or structure in their

property as otherwise she will lose valuable land.

v) On 03.05.2024 the GPA Holder of the petitioner has

addressed a letter to the 4th respondent to give the power

connection by conducting inspection of site as they are in

need of water for construction and the connection is given

subject to the outcome of the suit, she will bind over the

same. However, the 4th respondent has not replied. On

16.05.2024 she has addressed another letter to the 4th

respondent requesting for new connection as she has paid

already the meter charges and balance amount for electricity

connection at her property and denied the objections since

the providing of cart way is not the duty of the TSSPDCL and

the poles are erected on the road and not in the land of the

6th respondent and therefore requested to consider their

SN,J WP_15736_2024

representation dt.16.05.2024 and to issue the connection to

their property.

vi) Under the impugned letter dt.27.04.2024, the 5th

respondent without considering their representations dated

03.05.2024 and 16.05.2024 kept the giving of connection in

abeyance on the pretext of pending civil case even though

there are no orders of injunction or prohibition from the

competent civil court. The G.P.A Holder of the petitioner has

been making the representations stating that the 6th

respondent is no way concerned with the erection of the pole

but however the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 more especially the

4th respondent is not obliging to give the connection to the

subject pole. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner

approached this Hon'ble Court by way of filing the present

Writ petition. Hence, the Writ Petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

4. The specific grievance of the petitioner in the present

writ petition is that, the respondents without considering their

representations, dated 03.05.2024 and 16.05.2024 kept the

release of power connection in abeyance on the pretext of

SN,J WP_15736_2024

pending civil case even though there are no orders of

injunction or prohibition from the competent Civil Court as on

date.

5. 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 and in

particular at para Nos. 6, 7, 12 and 13 observed as

under:

6. 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

SN,J WP_15736_2024

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 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

SN,J WP_15736_2024

Electricity Act, 2003 for carrying out the work for supply of electricity to the house of the appellant."

6. The Judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at

Ahmedabad inbetween Yogesh Lakhmanbhai Chovatiya

and PGVCL through the Deputy Engineer, passed in

Special Civil Application No.6281 of 2021 dated

02.08.2022 and in particular, paragraph Nos. 9 and 10

of the said judgment read as under:

9. Thus, the petitioners, who are the occupiers of the land, cannot be denied the electricity connection only because dispute with regard to decision of the land in question is pending. The Division Bench has observed that the company cannot decide the disputed question of right and title and the ownership or right of occupancy has no nexus with grant of electrical connection to a consumer.

10. Under the circumstances, the respondent Company is directed to supply electricity connection to the petitioners in the premises or in the property, where they are presently staying and occupying the same."

7. This Court opines that Electricity is an essential

service of basic amenity requirement for human

existence, which cannot be denied because of dispute

with regard to ownership of the land which is pending

in respect of the petitioner's subject land. The

SN,J WP_15736_2024

ownership or right of occupancy has no nexus with

grant of electrical connection to a consumer and the

applicant/occupier of a land cannot be denied the

electricity service connection only because dispute with

regard to decision of the land in question is pending

and civil suits relating to ownership and possession are

pending between the applicant/occupier and others.