The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the validitation of restricting power supply to 7 hours for a poultry farm connected to an agricultural feeder. The court held that changing the feeder to extend supply duration incurs costs payable by the consumer, distinguishing the cited precedent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.11733 of 2012
Dated: 12.12.2012
Between:
Bollineni Venkata Satyavathi.
…..Petitioner
And
The A.P.Eastern Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Eluru, rep. by its Superintendent Engineer (Operations) & others.
…..Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.11733 of 2012
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of respondents in restricting power supply to 7 hours per day to the petitioner’s service connection bearing No.001275-1013, in Sy.No.297 of Munduru village of Pedavegi Mandal in West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary, and also seeks consequential directions to the respondents to supply power to the petitioner’s service connection under the category of Commercial-II, for 24 hours per day, in the interest of justice.
In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that she has set up a poultry farm in her land in Sy.No.297 of Munduru village of West Godavari District. She has applied for electric power supply connection in Commercial-II category, and accordingly, the respondentauthorities have prepared the estimates and issued the letter, dated 16.08.2011, in Lr.No.Mgr/CSC/ELR/F.Intimation/D.No. 807, directing the
petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.49,904/- towards service line charges and security deposit amount. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that accordingly, as per the instructions issued by the respondents, petitioner has already paid the said amount and the electricity service was released. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though her service connection is under Commercial-II category, respondents are illegally and arbitrarily restricting power supply to 7 hours and are further demanding to pay additional service line charges for supply of power for more than 7 hours.
Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent. In the counter affidavit, while denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that on the application submitted by the petitioner at call centre, Eluru for release of 2 KW nondomestic load to the poultry farm, the Assistant Engineer (Operation), Pedavegi has prepared estimation and sanctioned the service connection. It is stated that after receiving the payments, the works were completed and service was released on 06.01.2012 after following the departmental formalities. It is stated that 11 KV VegiwadaC.C.Pudi feeder is purely an agriculture feeder, which is having only 7 hours supply. When the petitioner/consumer desired to enhance the supply from 7 hours to 18 hours duly changing the feeder from existing feeder to the other nearby 11 KV rural feeder, further
estimates are prepared and the petitioner is asked to pay the required service line charges for connecting from the other available feeder of 11 KV at RamaraogudemDharmaraopeta.
In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that once the service line charges were collected when the petitioner had applied for Category-II service connection, it is not open for the respondents to restrict power supply only to 7 hours. It is stated that further, there is also no authority or jurisdiction to the respondents to collect additional amount towards the revised cost of estimates to extend the supply of power for more number of hours as sought by the petitioner. The learned counsel has referred to clause 5.3.2 of terms and conditions of supply and also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sithani Textiles and Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., v. A.P.State . Electricity Board[1]
In this case, it is to be noticed that when the petitioner sought for service connection, estimates were prepared earlier, to connect from the existing agriculture feeder. So far as the feeders which are set up for the purpose of supplying power for agriculture sector are concerned, the respondents are releasing power only for 7 hours. The earlier estimates were prepared, taking into account the expenditure to be incurred for the purpose of extending the line only from the existing feeder which was
being used for agriculture purpose. In that view of the matter, as the connection was from the agriculture feeder, only 7 hours supply was given to the petitioner. When the petitioner seeks for supply of power for more number of hours, respondents have taken steps to change the feeder, for which, additional service line charges are demanded from the petitioner. In that view of the matter, while it is true that at first instance, petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.49,904/- towards service line charges and security deposit, but in view of the change of feeder as sought by the petitioner for continuous supply, respondents are incurring additional service line charges. Even from a perusal of clause 5.3.2 of the terms and conditions of supply, it is clear that the said clause does not prevent the respondents from collecting any additional charges that are being incurred by them for change of feeder at the request of consumer. Petitioner, while making a request for extension of supply for more than 7 hours, cannot refuse to pay the additional charges to be incurred for change of feeder. In that view of the matter, having regard to the facts of the case, the judgment in the case of Sithani Textiles and Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) also would not render any assistance in support of the case of the petitioner.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, WVMP.No.2614 of 2012 and
WPMP.No.14768 of 2012 stand closed.
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
12th December 2012
ajr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority can restrict power supply to 7 hours for a commercial connection derived from an agricultural feeder and demand additional charges for changing the feeder.
Whether the Division Bench judgment in Sithani Textiles applies to the facts of this case regarding change of feeder and additional charges.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sithani Textiles and Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., v. A.P. State Electricity BoardDistinguished¶18
Sithani Textiles and Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., v. A.P. State Electricity Board
Bollineni Venkata Satyavathi
The A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Corporation Limited
R. Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
