Disposed

Akkisetti Padmavathi W/o Venkatasubbaiah v. Southern Power Distribution Company of a.P., Ltd.

Telangana HC16 Dec 2014WP/19966/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that disconnecting a service connection without issuing a prior notice giving the petitioner an opportunity to explain the default was not in accordance with law. Liberty was granted to issue a notice for arrears, and the interim payment made was to be refunded subject to the wake of that notice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; service connection not to be disconnected while charges are regular; liberty to issue notice for arrears; interim payment of Rs 3000 to be refunded.

Akkisetti Padmavathi W/o Venkatasubbaiah Vs Southern… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19966 of 2007

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶5

2. The petitioner had a service connection No.1824 for House No.2/14, Matamveedhi, Siddavatam Town, Kadapa District. The said service connection was sanctioned in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner has been paying bills regularly. While so, on 18.08.2007 the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Vontimetta along with his staff came to the house of the petitioner and disconnected the service connection. The petitioner came to know that the service connection was disconnected on the ground that the husband’s brother of the petitioner committed default in payment of consumption charges in respect of another service connection. Challenging the action of the respondents, this writ petition was filed.

¶6

3. This Court, by order dated 21.09.2007, directed the respondents to restore power supply to the petitioner’s service connection No.1824 subject to payment of 1/4^th of the arrears standing on service connection No.929, where it was stated that an amount

¶7

of Rs.12,000/- was due.

¶8

4. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the said interim order, the service connection was restored.

¶9

5. Since the service connection of the petitioner was disconnected without issuing any notice, the action of the respondents in disconnecting the service connection of the petitioner is bad in law. If the respondents want to recover any arrears of amount as per the terms and conditions of supply, they have to issue notice to the petitioner and with a right to the petitioner to submit her explanation. Since the service connection was already restored, liberty is given to the respondents to issue a notice to the petitioner claiming arrears, if any, and the petitioner is entitled to submit her explanation to the said notice. The amount of Rs.3,000/-paid pursuant to the interim order of this Court shall be refunded subject to the action to be taken by the respondents pursuant to the proposed notice and the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

¶10

6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The service connection of the petitioner shall not be disconnected so long as the petitioner pays regular consumption charges. Pending miscellaneous petitions,

¶11

if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.

¶12

________________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: December 16, 2014 BSB

¶13

6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.19966 of 2007

¶15

Date: December 16, 2014

¶16

BSB

Akkisetti Padmavathi W/o Venkatasubbaiah v. Southern Power Distribution Company of a.P., Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akkisetti Padmavathi W/o Venkatasubbaiah v. Southern Power Distribution Company of a.P., Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Nageswara Rao, Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

V.Jagannadha Rao (died) per LRs Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Sri N.Chadrashekar Vs The Director of Mines And Geology, 8th Floor Brkr Bhavan

Govindula Suguna, Vs The Station House Officer

Smt. Saride Lakshmi kantham W/o S. Krishna Murthy Vs The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation

Pola Raja, Vs a.P.State Financial Corporation