SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ…
Director to open seal, issue notice for electricity dues, and permit business resumption upon payment.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.17764 of 2012
Dated 0 1 st October, 2012
Between:
Mohd.Mazheruddin
…Petitioner
and
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, MJ Road, Hyderabad, rep.by its Secretary and others
…Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Karuna Sagar
for Sri A.Prabhakar Rao Yadav
Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri G.Vivekananda
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The action of the respondents in locking and sealing the leased room is questioned in this writ petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Under agreement, dated 06.08.2007, respondent No.2 has leased out a small place within the premises of respondent No.1 for running photocopy and stationery business on a monthly rent of Rs.1,300/-. It is also agreed between the parties that the lessor will supply electricity subject to the lessee installing all electrical fittings and his paying electricity charges assessed through a sub-meter.
It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the agreement, a sub-meter was fixed and that the same has been recording the consumption, but whenever he is approaching respondent No.1 offering to pay the amount through challan, he was not permitted to make such payments. However, on the purported ground that the petitioner has not paid the electricity charges,
respondent No.1 has locked and sealed the premises on 22.04.2012. After issuing legal notice, dated 23.04.2012, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
Even though this case was adjourned on many occasions, no counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1.
At the hearing, the learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner has committed default in payment of electricity charges right from the inception i.e., from the month of August, 2007 and that therefore, respondent No.1 has locked and sealed the premises.
Sri M.Karuna Sagar, learned counsel, representing Sri A.Prabhakar Rao Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client is prepared to pay the electricity charges as recorded by the sub-meter.
Since the dispute between the parties centres around nonpayment of electricity charges by the petitioner and as the petitioner has expressed his readiness to pay such charges, respondent No.1 is directed to open the seal and the lock, and issue a notice to the petitioner after taking reading from the sub-meter in the presence of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 shall indicate in the notice the number of units consumed by the petitioner and the amount payable by him. As soon as the petitioner pays the amount demanded under the notice, respondent No.1 shall permit him to resume his business. The petitioner shall continue to pay the monthly electricity charges as recorded by the sub-meter in future till the period of agreement comes to an end.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.22732 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
01st October, 2012 VGB
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the high court should interfere in the locking and sealing of leased premises due to alleged non-payment of electricity charges when the lessee is prepared to pay the dues.
Mohd.Mazheruddin
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and others
Sri A.Prabhakar Rao Yadav
C.V.NagARjuna REdDy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
