Disposed

B.Vijaya v. The Northern Power Distribution Company Limited

Telangana HC21 Jun 2016WP/23704/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a demand for electricity charges on unrecorded units. The judge found the consumer did not tamper with the meter and attributed the deficit to a defective meter. The writ petition was disposed of on the condition that the petitioner pays the balance arrears within three months without further interest or penalties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given liberty to pay the balance 50% amount within three months; on deposit, respondents directed to restore power without insisting on interest etc.

B.Vijaya Vs The Northern Power Distribution Company… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23704 of 2003

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, Senior counsel for petitioner and Sri K.Ravindra Kumar, Standing counsel for respondents.

¶5

The petitioner challenges order No.SE:OP:KNR:TECH:D.No. 1403, dated 09-09-2003. The Superintending Engineer Operations, Karimnagar/1^st respondent through the impugned order called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.34,044/- towards energy charges for consumption of unrecorded 20,000 units.

¶6

The operative portion of the impugned order reads as

¶7

follows:-

¶8

“On this representation the Divisional Engineer Elecl. Operation Huzurabad has recommended to consider the short fall 20.000 units from date of release 30-3-1993 to date of inspection 16-11-2001 an average basis and requested to deduct the pilferage units from short fall.

¶9

As per recommendation of the Divisional Engineer Electl. Operation Huzurabad the case is for Rs.35,044/- as per statement enclosed based on the average consumption from 3,1993 to 11 2001.

¶10

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after thorough verification of records, I am convinced that the consumer did not indulged and meddled with meter and the meter has not recorded the consumption that the consumer did not indulged and meddled with meter and the meter has not recorded the consumption 20000 and the loss sustained by the A.P.Transco is on account of the energy recording less by 20,000 units is estimated at Rs.35,044 only. The consumer shall contact Asst. Accounts Officer, ERO. A.P. Transco Huzurabad and pay the said amount less the amounts already paid. If any in

¶11

this case within 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which supply to the said service connection will be disconnected and steps will be taken to recover the amount due. This order is final and no appeal further.”

¶12

The circumstances relevant for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner is a domestic consumer of electricity. On 06-11-2001, the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations), inspected the house of petitioner and issued provisional notice dated 26-11-2001. It is matter of record, the petitioner submitted representation and contended that the figures arrived at by the Department are incorrect and the meter is defective and no meddling by the petitioner is noticed, therefore demanding energy charges for unrecorded 20,000 units is impermissible. As already noted, the 1^st respondent had recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner did not either indulge in tampering with the meter or meddle with it in any way but non-recording of actual consumption is due to defective meter.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that as against the demanded amount of Rs.35,044/-, the petitioner has already paid Rs.18,000/- and odd. The petitioner may be permitted to pay the balance amount without further levies such as penalty or interest for reconnection.

¶14

Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents draws the attention to the impugned order and contends that balance should be paid with interest.

¶15

The petitioner is a domestic consumer and the facts and circumstances of the case are certainly singular. The supposition in the notice is that the Meter was tampered. But the 1^st

¶16

respondent has taken note objectively of the totality of circumstances and exonerated the charge of either meddling or tampering with the meter by the petitioner. Non-recording of actual consumption is attributed to defective meter. At the earliest point of time, the petitioner had paid 50% of the demanded amount and the petitioner is prepared to pay the balance without demur. I am satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of by this order.

¶17

The petitioner is given liberty to pay balance 50% to respondents, by enclosing a copy of this order, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondents are directed to restore power and not insist upon payment of interest etc. If the petitioner does not pay the amount as indicated above, it is open to the respondents to act in accordance with law.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶20

_____________ S. V. BHATT, J

¶21

Dt: 21-06-2016 Prv

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.23704 of 2003

¶24

21-06-2016

¶25

Prv

B.Vijaya v. The Northern Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Vijaya v. The Northern Power Distribution Company Limited

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

Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Ltd., Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission,.

M/s. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

M/s. Steel Exchange India Limited, Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

Karan Centra Flat Owners Association Vs Transmission Corporation of a.P., Ltd.

V.D.M.L.Kalyani Vs S.v.v.P.v.M.C.Mahila Vidya Peeth Degree college for

Rajeswara Forgings (P) Vs The Superitending Engineer Operation Circle