Allowed

Lingala Senapathi, v. The Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Telangana HC17 Jul 2018WP/4127/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honourable Supreme Court allowed a writ petition seeking electricity connection. It held that non-payment of dues by a previous tenant cannot impede the respondents from providing electricity to the petitioner under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if requisite charges are paid.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to provide electrical energy to the petitioner within four weeks, ignoring previous tenant's dues.

Lingala Senapathi, Vs The Central Power… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WP.No.4127 of 2018

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard the counsel for petitioner, and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, counsel for respondents.

¶5

2. The petitioner’s grievance is that petitioner has made a requisition to respondents on 21.12.2017 for 25 KV electricity connection, agreeing to pay required fee and complete all the formalities, but the 3^rd respondent has not taken any action thereon.

¶6

3. The petitioner has also filed his registered sale deed in support of his title to the property which is not disputed by the Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶7

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents, however, it is stated that in the same premises there was earlier, another tenant by name M/s.Metro Washers, which had been granted a service connection in its name; that there were dues payable by the said tenant; and that the said tenant had in fact vacated the premises and filed WP.No.11448 of 2015 for shifting of the electricity transformer provided to him, but he has not paid the shifting charges.

¶8

5. Since the said tenant had already vacated from the subject premises whatever be his financial liability to the respondents, it is open to respondents to recover the same from the said tenant.

¶9

MSR,J wp_4127_2018

¶10

::2::

¶11

6. However, in view of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which imposes an obligation on the respondents to supply electrical energy subject to the Rules and Regulations framed by the 1^st respondent, the excuse of the other tenant not paying dues raised by the respondents cannot be an impediment to provide electrical energy to the subject premises as per the request of the petitioner, if the petitioner pays the requisite charges therefor.

¶12

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to provide electrical energy to the subject premises without reference to the dues of the earlier tenant within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No order as to costs.

¶13

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶14

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶15

Date: 17.07.2018 Ndr/*

Lingala Senapathi, v. The Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lingala Senapathi, v. The Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R Subrahmanyam Vs B Chandrasekher

R Lokesh Vs D.Govinda Swamy

R Lokesh Vs D.Govinda Swamy

Ch Benarji Vs State of Ap

Mr Sher Ali Shah Vs Prl.Secretary ( Revenue) and 9 Others

Bunga Jaya Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh