Allowed

M/s Anand Ispat Udyog Ltd., v. Transmission Corporation of a.P> Limited

Telangana HC2 Sept 2014WP/3212/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order sets aside an impugned order passed by the second respondent regarding defective meter and back billing. The Court held that such disputes fall under the jurisdiction of the Chief Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, relying on the Full Bench judgment in Klayman Procelains Limited.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 23.03.2004 issued by the second respondent setting the assessment is set aside due to lack of jurisdiction.

M/s Anand Ispat Udyog Ltd., Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.3212 of 2006

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and none appeared for the respondents.

¶4

2. The petitioner is a private limited company which had set up an industrial unit and engaged in the manufacture of mild steel ingots at Timmapur Village, Kothur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. It obtained a high tension power supply for the purpose of the said industry. While so, the third respondent issued a notice on 18.08.2005 by invoking Condition No.22.3.3.3 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply proposing to do back billing for the period from 23.09.2004 to 23.03.2005 on the ground that on 05.02.2005 the service connection of the petitioner was inspected by the DE/DPE and found that the voltage recorded was unbalanced and consequently requested the MRI Wing to replace the potential transformer which is the integral part of the meter. Thereafter, on 24.03.2005, the defective Y-Phase PT was replaced and there was an error of 4.07% on the negative side by the meter. Accordingly, DE/DPE proposed to assess the shortfall units at 1,34,212 KWH for the above period and proposed to levy a sum of Rs.6,13,286/-. Thereafter, the second respondent passed an order on 23.11.2005, deciding that the petitioner’s meter was defective and assessed the shortfall of Rs.6,13,286/- for the period from 23.09.2004 to 23.02.2005.

¶5

3. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the power to decide the meter dispute cases is vested with the Chief Electrical Inspector to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Initially, the petitioner approached the second respondent, who passed an

¶6

order without any authority, and the petitioner after coming to know of the true legal position, requested the respondents 2 and 3 to transfer the matter to the jurisdictional special tribunal. But the respondent failed to do so. The present Writ Petition was filed based on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Klayman Procelains Limited, Hyderabad and others V. Superintending Engineer, Operation, Mahabubnagar Circle, A.P.S.E.Board, Hyderabad and other s^[1] . The learned counsel for petitioner, ultimately, by relying on an order of this Court in W.P.No.7988 of 2004, dated 03.12.2004, submits that the said Writ Petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge based on the above order of Full Bench Judgment. The learned Single Judge held in the said Writ Petition as follows:

¶7

“A Full Bench of this Court in Klayman Procelains Limited, Hyderabad and others v Superintending Engineer, Operation, Mahabubnagar Circle, A.P.S.E. Board, Hyderabad and others (2001 (5) ALT 274 (FB)), held that the disputes as to the correctness of the meter or its defective functioning and where no fraudulent conduct on the part of the consumer or indulging in pilferage by him of electrical energy is alleged, falls to be considered by the Chief Electrical Inspector of the State in terms of Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 notwithstanding the provisions of the Terms and Conditions of Supply.

¶8

The learned Standing counsel for the respondentCorporation does not demur from the position of law as enunciated by the Full Bench of this Court (supra) nor it is contended that the law declared therein does not hold the field as on date.

¶9

In the circumstances and in the light of law declared in Klayman Procelains Limited, Hyderabad and others v Superintending Engineer, Operation, Mahabubnagar Circle, A.P.S.E. Board, Hyderabad and others (supra), the second respondent is seen to be patently incompetent to have made the assessment as contained in the proceedings dated 23.03.2004. As such, since the dispute as to the meter in the petitioner’s premises would have to be adjudicated and the assessment made only by the Chief Electrical Inspector of the State concerned, the order impugned dated 23.03.2004

¶10

issued by the second respondent is incompetent and it is accordingly set aside. The parties are at liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy in accordance law, as the order of the second respondent has been set aside only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.”

¶11

4. In view of the above order, this Writ Petition is also allowed in terms of the ratio laid down in W.P.No.7988 of 2004 dated 03.12.2004. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

_______________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 02.09.2014 TJMR

¶13

[1] 2001 (5) ALT 274 (F.B)

M/s Anand Ispat Udyog Ltd., v. Transmission Corporation of a.P> Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Anand Ispat Udyog Ltd., v. Transmission Corporation of a.P> Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Reyaz Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Mangaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

M/s.Asvini Fisheries Private Limited, rep. by its Vs The sEcretary, Agricultural Market Committee

M/s United Steel Allied Industries (P) Ltd, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Dhanraj Singh, Vs Mr.Somesh Kumar

P.v.Varaprasad, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Kurnool