Dismissed

smt. Nilofer Fatima v. The Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC22 Mar 2011WP/906/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that questions regarding disputed facts concerning power supply arrears and premises differences are beyond Article 226 jurisdiction and should be approached via the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum or Ombudsman constituted under the Electricity Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without examining merits; interim relief disposed of as infructuous.

smt. Nilofer Fatima Vs The Central Power… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.906 of 2011

¶2

Date:22.03.2011

¶3

Between:

¶4

Smt.Nilofer Fatima

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

AND

¶7

The Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Hyderabad, rep.by its Managing Director.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Mohd.Ghouse Imam Counsel for Respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing domestic power supply connection to the petitioner’s premises bearing municipal No.8-3-222/1/1/C/1, of Yousufguda, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to release power supply.

¶12

A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.2, wherein it is inter alia stated that in respect of premises bearing No.8-3-222/1/8, four service connections under Category-I and one service connection under Category-II were released, that the said service connections were inspected by ADE/DPE/SD-I on 21.03.2009 and it was found that the consumer was indulging in theft of energy and that notices were issued in respect of three service connections, questioning which, W.P.No.9770 of 2009 was filed by the consumer in this Court, which is pending.

¶13

It is further stated that total assessed amount is Rs.9,67,880/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.4,30,574/- is paid. It is also stated that on receipt of the application for release of supply from the petitioner, the

¶14

Assistant Engineer visited the premises and found that the application was made for the premises, in respect of which, four service connections were given earlier and that as there are arrears payable in respect of the same, supply was not given.

¶15

At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the premises, for which, the application for release of power supply has been made, is different from the one, in respect of which, the respondents are claiming arrears.

¶16

I am afraid, the dispute raised by the petitioner falls in the realm of disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. T h e Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission exercising powers under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 has constituted Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and also Ombudsman. Therefore, it is appropriate for the petitioner to approach the said fora for redressal of her grievance.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies referred to above.

¶18

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.1111 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22^nd March, 2011 VGB

smt. Nilofer Fatima v. The Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

smt. Nilofer Fatima v. The Central Power Distribution Company of 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

P.Srihari Rao, Vs The Government of A.P.

Tallapudi Joga Rao, Vs The District Collector

D. Govind Vs The District Collector

G. Vanaja Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

Northern Power Distribution Corporation Electrical and Vs The Northern Power Distribution Company Limited

Bathuva-I Water Users Association (Borapothuvani Cheruvu) Vs District Collector, (Panchayat Raj)