Disposed

The Sudha Products Rep.by its Proprietor v. Chief Managing Director

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2021WP/9108/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the quantum of electricity charges by directing the petitioner to seek redress through the Grievance Forum established under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, while keeping an interim arrangement in force. (Note: Judgment date 2021 appears to be a clerical error for WP filed in 2008)

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed; petitioner permitted to avail remedy under Section 42(5) of Electricity Act, 2003 within two weeks; interim arrangement continues for four weeks.

The Sudha Products Rep.by its Proprietor Vs Chief… — Consumer Protection | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.9108 OF 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri S.Srirama Chandra Murty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Metta Chandrasekhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶5

Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the proceedings of the Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, Nidadavole, West Godavari District3^rd respondent herein, vide letter No.AAo/ERO/NDD/JAO 11/D No.508/2008 dated 29.02.2008. According to the petitioner, it is a firm engaged in the manufacture of pulp egg trays and it is the consumer of the respondents with Service Connection No.115100794 in Group M.I.

¶6

A reading of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition reveals in clear terms that the petitioner herein is disputing the quantum of payment of charges payable to the respondents. The composite High Court, vide order dated 24.04.2008 in WPMP No.12056 of 2008, directed the respondents to immediately restore the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection, while observing therein that prima facie , the impugned proceedings are issued ignoring the specific finding of this Court in its order dated 06.03.2007 and the letter dated 22.04.2002 addressed by the Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation, Chagallu to the Assistant Accounts Officer, Nadadavole. On 24.08.2010, in W.V.M.P. No.3360 of 2008, the composite High Court passed the following order:

¶7

"Accordingly, W.P.M.P.No.12056/2008 and W.V.M.P.No.3360/2008 are disposed of by amending the order dated 24-4-2008 made in W.P.M.P.No.12056/2008 with a direction to the petitioner to pay bill on 8129 Units.

¶8

¶9

The respondents shall raise a demand in this regard and serve the same on the petitioner. Within two weeks from the receipt of the said demand, the writ petitioner shall make the payment. Subject to these conditions, the respondents shall continue the power supply to the writ petitioner. The abovementioned demand to be raised by the respondents and the payment to be made by the writ petitioner shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petition."

¶10

Admittedly, the petitioner in this Writ Petition is disputing the quantum of the charges payable. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which read as under:

¶11

"Section 42(5) :

¶12

Every distribution licensee shall, within six months from the appointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever is earlier, establish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers in accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the State Commission."

¶13

It is not in dispute that in terms of the said provision of law, the Reddressal Grievances Fora have been created by the respondents and they are functioning. Having regard to the nature of the dispute in the present Writ Petition, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate to the petitioner to the above said alternative remedy provided under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, for verification of the issues raised.

¶14

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner herein to avail the remedy, as provided under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, against the action impugned in

¶15

¶16

the present Writ Petition, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that for a period of four weeks from today, the interim arrangement made by this Court, as mentioned supra, shall continue to operate. It is also made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail the remedy available under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, within the time stipulated above, this order will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner herein.

¶17

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to the costs of the Writ Petition.

¶18

___________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶19

Date: 17.09.2021 siva

¶20

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.9108 OF 2008

¶23

Date: 17.09.2021

¶24

siva

The Sudha Products Rep.by its Proprietor v. Chief Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Sudha Products Rep.by its Proprietor v. Chief Managing Director

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

Vallur Usha Rani, Vs The Honble Court of the First Additional Munsif Magistrate

G. Narayana, Vs The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Ande Krishna Murthy Vs the Vidyut Ombudsman, Hyderabad, and 4 Otrs.

Mannava Sai Madhuri, Vs The Union of India

G. Prem Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mekala Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh