Disposed

Raavi Prasad, v. The Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Sept 2021WP/6363/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a Writ Petition challenging a Consumer Forum order granting electricity service connection. It held the petition not maintainable due to the alternative remedy of representation to the Ombudsman and the absence of binding title findings by the Forum.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition stands disposed; petitioner directed to file an appropriate application before the Ombudsman within two weeks.

Raavi Prasad, Vs The Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6363 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

In the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the order, dated 22.01.2021, passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (hereinafter called as ‘Forum’), APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam-sixth respondent herein in C.G.No.124 of 2020.

¶5

Heard Sri P.Anand Seshu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Metta Chandrasekhara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL, appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

¶6

The seventh respondent herein approached the Forum and filed an application under Clause 2 (5) r/w 13 of the APERC Regulation-3 of 2016 and under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), complaining against the authorities about the non-consideration of his application for LT Service Connection. In the said C.G.No.124 of 2020, petitioner herein was also arrayed as respondent No.5. The Forum disposed of the said C.G.No.124 of 2020, by way of an order, dated 22.01.2021, directing the authorities to release electrical Service Connection for the subject premises for which, the seventh respondent herein made an application.

¶7

AVSS,J W.P.No.6363 of 2021

¶8

¶9

In the above background, challenging the validity and the legal sustainability of the said order passed by the Forum, petitioner herein has come up before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶10

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the questioned order passed by the Forum is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply issued by the APERC, besides being a patent violation of the principles of natural justice. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned counsel that the subject property in respect of which the unofficial respondent herein sought Service Connection belongs to the petitioner and the petitioner herein acquired the subject property from his father-in-law, one Sri Muddala Simhachalam, by way of an agreement of salecum-General Power of Attorney. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that, having regard to the pendency of civil litigation before the trial Courts and the Appellate Courts, the authorities ought not to have considered the application of the unofficial respondent herein for grant of Service Connection. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that, in view of the specific language employed under Clause 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 of the General Conditions of Supply, the Forum grossly erred in passing the impugned order. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the Forum also went wrong in recording

¶11

AVSS,J W.P.No.6363 of 2021

¶12

¶13

the findings, touching the title and possession over the subject property.

¶14

On the contrary, strenuously resisting the very maintainability of the Writ Petition, learned Standing Counsel would contend that, having regard to the alternative remedy available to the petitioner herein, under sub-Section (7) of Section 42 of the Act, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable before this Court and the petitioner herein was also arrayed as respondent No.5 in the proceedings before the Forum. It is further contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the Forum, as submitted by the petitioner herein, did not record any finding with regard to the title to the property. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that, in terms of the orders passed by the Forum, the respondent authorities have already provided Service Connection to the unofficial respondent herein.

¶15

Admittedly, there are suits and counter-suits filed by the petitioner herein and the seventh respondent with regard to the subject property. It is a settled and well established principle of law that the findings recorded by the Quasi Judicial authorities are not binding on the civil Courts, while adjudicating the rights of the parties. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to show that the Forum recorded findings with regard to the title of the property, this Court does not find any such finding recorded by the Forum in the impugned order. Even assuming that such a finding is recorded, in view of the

¶16

AVSS,J W.P.No.6363 of 2021

¶17

¶18

settled proposition of law, as mentioned supra, the said finding is of no consequence for adjudication before the civil Courts. It is also not in controversy that before the Forum the unofficial respondent herein also impleaded the petitioner in the present Writ Petition as respondent No.5 and the respondent No.5 was given complete opportunity by the Forum before passing the order. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, any consumer, who is aggrieved by non-redressal of his grievances by forum, may make a representation for the redressal of his grievance to an authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by the State Commission and the Ombudsman shall settle the grievance of the consumer within such time and in such manner as may be specified by the State Commission.

¶19

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner herein also submitted an application for grant of Service Connection in respect of the subject property, without passing any orders on the same, the Forum passed the impugned order.

¶20

For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the provisions of sub-Sections (6) and (7) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, leaving it open for the petitioner herein to file an appropriate application before the Ombudsman, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for consideration of the same, in accordance with law, and for passing appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible,

¶21

AVSS,J W.P.No.6363 of 2021

¶22

¶23

after giving notice to all the stakeholders, Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶25

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶26

06^th September, 2021. Tsy

Raavi Prasad, v. The Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raavi Prasad, v. The Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tirumalapudi Naga Mani Vs Pola Bhaskar

P.S.R.Anjaneyulu Vs Rastriyaispath Nigam Limited

Lahari Vennam Vs Union of India

Pulagam Gani Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Maramreddi Chiranjeevi Reddy Vs The a.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

D Narayanamma Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer