Telangana High Court

Syed Hameeduddin vs Telangana State Southern Power ... on 3 February, 2025

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

          HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

             WRIT PETITION No.15125 OF 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri Mohd. Abdul Hai, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri N. Sreedhar

Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TS Transco

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri

Mohammed Abdul Quadeer, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondent No.4.

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 inaction of the respondent authorities in taking steps to refix/restore the electricity meters bearing S.C. No.69462 and 69546 to the petitioner's premises bearing H.No. 18-8- 509/1/20/C situated at Akber Nagar, Kumarwadi Colony, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad which were taken away on 18/4/2024 without any reasons followed by personal visits as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust unconstitutional and colourable exercise of powers and consequently direct the respondent authorities to refix the electricity meters to the above

SN, J

WP_15125_2024

mentioned premises by restoring the power supply and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case...".

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that house

bearing municipal Door No. 18-8-589/1/20/C, Edi Bazar,

Kumarwadi Colony, Hyderabad belongs to petitioner's

grandmother i.e. Smt. Late Rabia bee and the petitioner had

been lawful owner of the said house along with petitioner's

grandmother and had been enjoying the electricity

consumption by paying the electricity bills to the company

regularly. Though the petitioner had been prompt and

regular in payment of electricity charges to the respondent

authorities, the electricity service connection to the meter No.

69462, 69546 had been disconnected unlawfully on

18.04.2024 and the officials respondents had taken away the

petitioner's electricity meters in illegal manner. Since then

there was no electricity in the subject premises of the

petitioner. The petitioner made a request vide representation

dated 27.05.2024 for restoration of the electricity meter

No.69462, 69546 in respect of the premises No.18-8-

SN, J

WP_15125_2024

509/1/20/C, situated at Akber nagar, Kumarwadi Colony, Edi

Bazar, Hyderabad, which had been acknowledged by the

office of the Managing Director, TGSPDCL, Corporate Office,

Mint Compound, Hyderabad on 27.05.2024. However, no

action had been initiated in response to petitioner's request

for restoration of the subject electricity service meters.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ

petition.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.1 to

3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 to 3 placing reliance on the averments

made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to

3 in particular para Nos.2 to 5 contends that the electricity

meters bearing S.C. No. 69462 and 69546 had been removed

and that civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and

the respondents and the disputes need to be adjudicated by

the competent civil Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial

respondent No.4 placing reliance on the averments made in

the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent submits that

SN, J

WP_15125_2024

the petitioner has no right or claim over the subject property

and the electricity service connections sought for is only to

create ownership over the subject premises and that there are

civil disputes pending between the petitioner and the 4th

respondent and the petitioner had wrongly misrepresented

the facts and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any

relief as sought for in the present writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD

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:

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 extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission:

Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission

SN, J

WP_15125_2024

may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.

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."

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

SN, J

WP_15125_2024

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 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

SN, J

WP_15125_2024

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 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

SN, J

WP_15125_2024

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. This Court opines that the grievance of the

petitioner as put forth in the representation dated

27.05.2024 addressed to the Chairman, Managing

Director, TGSPDCL, Hyderabad needs to be considered

in accordance to law, since pendency of civil disputes

cannot be a ground for denial of electricity service

power supply as per Section 43 of the Electricity Act,

2003 and also as per the view laid down by the Apex

Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted

above. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the

respondent No.3 to consider the grievance of the

petitioner as put forth by the petitioner in the