Dismissed

M/s. Gurudatta Aqua Mineralas, Pedapadu, v. The Assistant Accounts Officer

Telangana HC17 Jun 2009WP/19878/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, operating a mineral water unit without a mandatory BIS certificate, sought a writ to restore electricity supply disconnected by respondents. The court held that disconnection under Condition 42.2 was justified and dismissed the petition, noting supply must resume if the certificate is later granted.

What did the court decide?

The application for issue of writ of mandamus restoring power supply is dismissed; supply must be restored if BIS certificate is eventually granted.

M/s. Gurudatta Aqua Mineralas, Pedapadu, Vs The… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19878 of 2004

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. Gurudatta Aqua Mineralas, Pedapadu, Chapuram Panchayat, Srikakulam District, Rep. by its Proprietor-Y.B.S Reddy, S/o. Late Suryanarayana Reddy, aged 58 Years.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.

¶10

2 Assistant Engineer, D!, A.P. Transco, EPDCL,

¶11

Srikakulam District.

¶12

3 The General Manager, District Industries Center, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in disconnecting power supply to the Petitioner's Unit bearing Service Consumer No. 37064, pursuant to the letter of the 1st respondent dated 1-10-2004 vide Lr.No. AAO/ERP/SKL/JAO/d.No.1128/04, as arbitrary, illegal, without power and jurisdiction, vioaltive of principles of natural justice and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to restore the power supply to the Petitioner's Unit Viz., M/s. Gurudatta Aqua Minerals, Pedapadu Chapuram Panchayat, Srikakulam District, forthwith;

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO)

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.19878 OF 2004

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in disconnecting power supply to its unit, pursuant to the letter No.AAO/ERP/SKL/JAO/d.No.1128/04 of the 1^st respondent dated 01.10.2004, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶20

The petitioner has set up a Mineral Water manufacturing unit in the name of M/s. Gurudatta Aqua Minerals in Pedapadu Village, Chapuram Panchayat, Srikakulam District. On an application made by him, he was given electricity service connection bearing No.37064. The third respondent addressed a letter dated 30.09.2004 to respondents 1 and 2 to disconnect the power supply on the ground that the petitioner-Unit is manufacturing drinking water packets without certification from Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), which is mandatory for manufacturing and selling mineral water packets. Referring to the aforesaid letter, the first respondent addressed a letter dated 01.10.2004 to the petitioner-Unit to produce BIS certificate. The petitioner submitted his representation stating that his application for BIS certificate is pending consideration before the authorities concerned and that he has not obtained the same as required by the third respondent.

¶21

The supply of Electricity is governed by the terms and conditions of supply framed by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Condition No.42.2 reads

¶22

as under:

¶23

“Where the consumer requires a licence or permission from any statutory authority or any authority of Govt. to run the business/industry or permission for lifting of water wherever necessary for purposes of irrigation, or for any other purpose for which he seeks or availing supply of electricity or for locating such business/industry/pumpset or any other equipment at the place where he is receiving such supply and the conduct of his business/industry activity at such place becomes unlawful by reasons of his failure to obtain initially or secure the continuance of such licence or permission, the Superintending Engineer of the Board may, if desired by the concerned statutory or any other competent authority of Government, after giving notice calling for explanation and after considering the same, discontinue supply without forfeiting the rights of the A.P.S.E.Board under the agreement with the consumer.”

¶24

It is not in dispute that for manufacturing mineral water packets, certification is necessary from Bureau of Indian Standards. Inasmuch as the petitioner has not obtained any such certification and started the manufacturing unit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have issued a notice and disconnected the power supply. Such an action of the respondents in disconnecting power supply is perfectly justified in view of clause 42.2 of the terms and conditions of supply framed by the Board in B.P.Ms.No.690, dated 17.09.1975 and as amended from time to time. Hence, I do not find any illegality in disconnecting power supply to the petitionerUnit.

¶25

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that as the application of the petitioner-Unit is pending consideration before the competent authority and if the

¶26

certificate is granted by the competent authority for manufacturing mineral water packets, this order will not preclude the respondents to supply power to the petitioner-Unit.

¶27

R.SUBHASH REDDY,J

¶28

Date:17.06.2009 usd

M/s. Gurudatta Aqua Mineralas, Pedapadu, v. The Assistant Accounts Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Gurudatta Aqua Mineralas, Pedapadu, v. The Assistant Accounts Officer

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

S.Ramesh Vs The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

J.Sreeramulu Vs The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Pinnamaraju Venkataramana Gandhi, S/o. Late Narasimha Rao, Vs The Superintendent of Police, Ongole

Kamat Restaurant, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sripath Rao Naik, S/o. Bheem Rao Naik, Vs The Asst. Engineer, A.P. Transco

T.Swarnalatha Vs TheCommissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation