Telangana High Court

Keerthi Richmond Villas Owner S Welfare ... vs The Southern Power Distribution ... on 30 January, 2025

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

           HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


               WRIT PETITION No.4924 OF 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri J. Srinadh Reddy, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Energy appearing on behalf of

respondent No.6 and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for TS Transco appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer

as under:

"...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI by calling records of the impugned Final Assessment Order passed by the 3rd Respondent vide Order No.DEE/OP/RJNR/F.No. FAO/23 D. No.4611/23 dated 2-2-2024 and quash the same duly declaring the same is contrary to law and General Terms and conditions of Supply 2006 and Tariff Order for FY 2023-24 besides violations Section 56 and 126 of Electricity Act 2003 and Article 14 of Constitution of India and further contrary to principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the Respondents to treat the petitioners Electricity connection service No. 3418 06270 be treated as Category-I (Domestic) or any SN, J 2 WP_4924_2024

other appropriate category as per law and consequently direct Respondents forebear from disconnection of power supply to their Service Nos.3418 0629 and 3418 06270 of the petitioners Association and pass...".

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

association was formed for welfare and maintenance of Richmond

Villas owners/residents and it was constructed exclusively for the

use of residents of Richmond Villas only. In the year 2019 the

inspecting officer from 1st respondent conducted inspection of the

villa premises and found that the electricity service connection

was used for commercial purposes against the sanction for

domestic use and a provisional assessment order was issued by

the 4th respondent on 21.11.2019 against the builder assessing

an amount of Rs.1,64,008/- and it was paid to the 5th respondent.

On 12.12.2020 the then President of the Association submitted a

representation to the respondents with a request to change the

category of two service connections Sc No. 341806269 and

341806270 from commercial to non-commercial. The petitioners

filed representations to the 3rd respondent on 02.08.2023,

06.10.2023 and 20.01.2024 to set aside the provisional

Assessment order and reassess both the service connections but

the 3rd respondent upheld the said order vide order No. SN, J 3 WP_4924_2024

DEE/OP/RJNR/F.No.FAO/23, D.No. 4611/23, dated

02.02.2024. Aggrieved by the said order dated 02.02.2024

passed by the respondent No.3, the present writ petition is filed.

4. This Court vide its interim order dated 27.02.2024

passed interim order in I.A. No.1 of 2024 in W.P. No. 4924

of 2024 in favour of the petitioner observing as under:

"This Interlocutory Application is filed seeking the Court to suspend the operation of Final Assessment Order passed by the 3rd respondent in his order No. DEE/OP/RJNR/F.No.FAO/23.D.No. 4611/23, dated 02.02.2024 including consequential proceedings, if any, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Heard Sri A. Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel, who argued on behalf of Sri J. Srinadh Reddy, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, as well as Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, there shall be interim suspension of operation of Final Assessment Order passed by 3rd respondent vide order No.DEE/OP/RJNR/F.No. FAO/23.D.No. 4611/23, dated 02.02.2024 suject to payment of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by the SN, J 4 WP_4924_2024

petitioner to the respondents-

authorities, on or before 07.03.2024.

List on 12.03.2024".

PERUSED THE RECORD

5. The impugned proceedings dated 02.02.2024 of the 3rd

respondent clearly indicates that appeal against the said order lies

before Superintending Engineer/Operation/Rajendra Nagar within

30 days from the date of receipt of the said order along with a

deposit of 50% of provisional assessment charges i.e.

Rs.10,82,407.0/- by the petitioner.

6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that in view of the fact

that the petitioner herein had complied with the orders of this

Court dated 27.02.2024 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2024 and had

deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- before 07.03.2024 and

therefore, the petitioner may be directed to prefer an appeal

before the Superintending Engineer/Operation/Rajendra Nagar,

who is the Appellate Authority in this regard to consider all the

pleas put forth by the petitioner pertaining to the subject issue as

raised in the present writ petition and other legal pleas as are

permissible to the petitioner within a reasonable period and the

appellate authority may be directed to adjudicate the same and SN, J 5 WP_4924_2024

decide legality of the final assessment order No.

DEE/OP/RJNR/ F./No.FAO/23, D.No.4611/23,dated 02.02.2024

and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law.

7. The observations of the Apex Court in judgment dated

20.04.2021 reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 in M/s.

Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,

which referred to Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of

Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and the said view

had been reiterated in a recent full bench judgment

reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 801 in "Magadh Sugar &

Energy Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others". The principles

governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High

Court in the presence of an alternate remedy had been

summarized in the said Judgment at para 28 and the same

is extracted hereunder:

"28. The principles of law which emerge are that:

(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;

(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person;

(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where

(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a SN, J 6 WP_4924_2024

fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;

(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;

(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and

(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with."

8. Taking into consideration

(a) The submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of petitioner and the learned Standing

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,

(b) The observations of the Apex Court in the

judgment referred to and extracted above in particular

clause (ii) and clause (v), SN, J 7 WP_4924_2024

The writ petition is disposed of directing the

petitioner to prefer an appeal before the

Superintending Engineer/Operation/Rajendra Nagar duly

raising all the pleas as put forth by the petitioner

pertaining to the subject issue as raised in the present writ