Allowed

M/s. Transgene Biotek Ltd. v. The Chairman and Managing Director and 3 others

Telangana HC1 Oct 2019WP/13518/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of electricity connection deration despite prior approval and payment. Court directed respondents to grant deration within two weeks while granting liberty to approach Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum regarding backbilling.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to accept deration request within two weeks; petitioner granted liberty to approach Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for backbilling relief.

M/s. Transgene Biotek Ltd. Vs The Chairman and… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13518 of 2019

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 22.05.2019 passed by the 3^rd respondent, confirming the order, dated 02.04.2019, passed by the 2^nd respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner for deration of the electricity connection SC No.SGR 730 from 150 KVA to 49 KVA, in spite of approving the request through letter, dated 20.12.2018 and in spite of receiving an amount of Rs.1,33,207/- on 01.02.2019.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already paid 50% of the demanded amount and it will approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) in respect of backbilling. He further submits that the respondents have accepted the reasons for deration and having received the amount from the petitioner, the respondents could not have rejected the request of the petitioner.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents basing on the counter-affidavit submits that since the issue of back-billing is pending and unless the same is not settled, the request of the petitioner for deration of the electricity connection cannot be acceded to.

¶7

¶8

In this case, it is to be seen that as far as the deration in power supply is concerned, the petitioner’s request for deration of CMD from 150 KVA to 49 KVA was approved, by letter, dated 20.12.2018, and also received an amount of Rs.1,33,207/-, there is no reason as to why such request should not be accepted. As far as the issue of backbilling is concerned, the CGRF would consider the same.

¶9

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach CGRF regarding backbilling within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and agitate its rights; as far as deration is concerned, the respondents are directed to accept the request of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, since the petitioner has already paid an amount Rs.1,33,207/-. If the petitioner does not approach the CGRF within the above stipulated time, it is open for the respondents to recover the amount towards back-billing.

¶10

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No

¶11

order as to costs.

¶12

__________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶13

1^st October 2019

¶14

mar

M/s. Transgene Biotek Ltd. v. The Chairman and Managing Director and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Transgene Biotek Ltd. v. The Chairman and Managing Director and 3 others

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

Maloth Rambabu Vs The State of Telangana

M.Rama Chary Vs Union of India

P. Narsimha Rao and 6 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Nishant Gupta S/o Purushottam Lal Gupta Vs Union of India

Master G.Vineeth, Vs The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource

Olympic Association of Telangana Vs Indian Olympic Association