Allowed

M/s. Power Welfare Society Regd. No.1732./2005, v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC20 Dec 2022WP/7232/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the petroleum distribution company's order to change the petitioner society's electricity classification from HT Category-II to Temporary Supply and impose back billing without a personal hearing, violating natural justice and previous court directions.

What did the court decide?

The imputed notice dated 09.03.2021 regarding the change of supply classification and demand for payment is set aside.

M/s. Power Welfare Society Regd. No.1732./2005… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7232 0F 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Y/l ?gy"r^{WelfareSocietyRegd..No.1732.t2005,p.WS_7,} Hilts, Survey No 118, 119 and 168, Narsingii RajEndra NagarMandbi, R.R. Oi.tri.i. Hvaei Ura J?pPy^{rts Sec.reta.ry-C.VB. Subratrmanyam, S/o. Late Siva Ram'akrishna,} I'noy,^{aggdabout 67 y-ears,.Occ. Retd. Service, R/o. Ftat No.E_101,7 Hills} Apartments, Power Welfare Society, R.R.District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep.by its Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabid.

¶12

2 The Transmission Corporation of Telangana, rep.by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Uyaerlnid.^-

¶13

J Southern Power Distri:b-ution C6mpany of Telangana Ltd., Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, Hyierabad.

¶14

1. I he Superintending Engine_e(Operaiion) Circle, Ranga Reddy South, ISSPIJCL, Nanalnagar'X' Roads, Rethibowli, Hvderibad.

¶15

( lhe Assistant Divisional Engineer, Telangana St-ate Southern power

¶16

Distribution Company Ltd., ibrahimbagn,Hangi RJOay'Oistrict.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more fully one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in changing the classification of Supply to the petitioner society from HT Category-ll to Temporary Supply and levying the amount by issuing Notice dated 09_03_2021 in Lr.No.sE/oP/cYBC/sAo/JAoiHT/ D.No. sg4t2o2o-21 of the 4th respondent herein calling upon the petitioner demanding to pay an amount of Rs.64,2g,400/within^'15 days from the date of receipt of said Notice, or else service will be liabte for disconnection as per prevailing rules is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the General rerms and conditions of Electricity supply besides being

¶19

violative the Princilrles of Natural Justice and consequently d'rect. the respondents not to interfere witlr the service connection of the petitioner No. FISS 12Bg of M/s. Power Welfare So:iety situated in Sy.No.1'18, 1'19 and 1r)B of Narsingi village, Ranga Reddy Distr ct and given credit to the amount alread,,paid by the petitioner society under tem )orary service connection from tvlarch :2{l'1 1 till the date of conversion to residcntial category.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶21

Petition unde' Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci cilmstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court rnav be pleased to Suspend the O )eration of the Letter/Notice datrd 39-03-2021 in Lr.No.SE/OP/CYBC,SAO/JAO/HT/ D.No. 594t2020-21 of rhe 4th respondent pending disposal of he above Writ Petition in the interest of jrrsrice.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶23

Between:

¶24

Southern Pow, rr Distribution Company of Telangana ' Ltd. Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director, Hyilerabad.

¶25

2 The Suo_erinterrding Enginee(Operaiion) Circle. Ranga F erjdy South. -^{TSSPDCL Na ralnagar'X'Roads, Rethibowli, Hyderabarl} 3. The Assistant I )ivisional Engineer, Telangana St-ate Sout tern t)ower Distribution Co npany Ltd., lbrahimbagh, Ranga Reddy District

¶26

,..PETITIONERS/RE:;PONDENTS 3 TO 5 AND

¶27

M/s. Power Welfare !-ociqty Regd. No.'1732./2005, P.\ /S-;,, Hiils, Survey No. 118, 1'9 and 168, Narsingi, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R. Distric[, Hyderabad^-ep.by its Secretary, C.V.B. Subrahman'arr, S/o. Late Siva Ramakrishn t, Hindu, aged about 67 years, Occ. Rei j. Seruice, R/o. Flat No.E-101, 7 Hills Apartments, Power Welfare Society, R R.District.

¶28

rhe state or reransana, rep.by its ,"",.,r;::t:;:::]J:"=JrrroNER Secretanat,^. iaifabad, Hyderabad.

¶29

The Transmi;sion Corporation of Telangana, rep.by its Man;rging Director, Vidyut Soudl,a Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶30

...RESPONDENT/RESPfNDENT NO.1 & 2

¶31

Petition under S ection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in s rpport of the petition, the High Court rray be pleased to

¶32

vacate the interim orders dated 31to312o21 in wp. No. 7232 of zo21 and dismiss the writ petition.

¶33

counsel for the Petitioner: sMT. K.SHESHA RAJYAM FoR sRl KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR ENERGY

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 5: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶37

TH: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{K"Sli.IllAl'H}

¶38

.VI{IT PETITION No. 7232 o^f202)

¶39

ORI)ER:

¶40

This writ^petr tion is fiIed^{for the following relief:}

¶41

"... to iss: re a u'rit, order or^{dtrectionmore} fullA^{one itt lhe notllre} of Writ oi Mandamus declaing^{the oction of the resp,,ndenis in} changing the classifiantion^{of Supplg to the} },etition?r^societv frorn^{HT Category-ll to TemporarySupplgarfi} le t'11tng the amount by issuing^{Notice dated09.03.: 0.21in} Lr.No.SEt OP/ CYBC/ SAO/^{JAO/ HT/ D.No- 594/202C-21 of the} responde tt No.4 herein^{calling upon the petitioner dznnruling} to paA amount of Rs.64,28,40O/- utithin^{13 dag:} |iom^the date of n ceipt of soid^{Notice,or else Serubet uitt be inbte} for d[s<-onne<tion^{as per preuailing rules is wholly legal, urbitrary,} uni$t ar d contrarA^{to the General Termsand Ooniition:; of} Electrtcitg Supplg besides^{beinguiolatiue tfu' Pimipiesof} Nahffal J Lstice and^{consequentlgdirect therespondett.; nol to} interkre^; uith the seruice connection^{of thepetitione rNo.l?SS} 1289 of Iv / s. Pouer^{WelfareSocietgsituated in Sy. No ) i 8,I 19} & 168 of t larsingi^{uittage,Ranga Reddg District andgi tat cntdit} to the an ount already^{paid bg the petitioner societq under} temporarA seruice^connection from^{March 2011 ti[ ttrrlate Of} cont ersiot to residentlal^category..."

¶42

Heard Smt. K.Shesha Rajyam,^{Leamed Senior tlourrselfor tie} petitioner ant Sri R.Vinod^{Reddy, LearnedStandirrg Counselfor} Telangana St rte^{SouthernPower Distritrution Corrtpany Limited,} appearing for^t he^resPondents.

¶43

, .", ..
, SK,J
Wl'.No.7232 of202 |

¶44

The Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a registered society under the provisions of A.p.societies Act, 2O01 bearing No.1735/20O5. During the year 2009, the society has undertaken the construction of residenlial complex in Sy.No.1lg, 119 and 168 of Narsingi village, Ranga Reddy District and approached Respondent Corporation for providing power Suppty of 63O KVA contacted maximum demand in a phased manner. After completion of all the formalities, the Respondent Corporation entered into Agreement for supply of High Tension Electricity. While it being so, the respondent No.S herein has issued a letter dated 15.O3.2O12 bearing Lr.N0.ADE/OP/Ibrahimbagh/ D.NO.706 alleging that tlle service connection of the petitioner Societjz was inspected on 07. 1 1 .201 1 and made allegations viz., i) the consumer is availing 3 phase healthy supply , (ii) the CMD of the HT service is 630 KVA and the service is being bitled under HT-II Category, [iii) the consumer is utilizing the supply for the purpose of construction only, (rv) the service fa-lls under HT Temporary supply and (v) proposed to bill the HT Service under HT Temporary supply category. Without considering reply of tlle Petitioner Society, the Respondent Corporation has issued a Demand dated, 26.04.2O12 caling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.55,24,082/- on or before 7O'-OS_2O12 and the back billing was done from 0l-O8-201O i.e., for more than 6 months. It is further submitted that having left with no other alternative the petitioner Society has

-Z

::3::

sK^l <sup>,\rt-:lt,l lllI

¶49

¶50

¶51

Iiled W-P.N o. 18296 /2012 and this Court by^it s^t)rder dated l2.Oa-2O13 rllor.r,ed the Writ Petition setting aside the rmpugned lettercum-conseq rential assessment for short billing cLated 15.03.2O12. This Court frrther directed that the respondents sh:ll be^given Notice and opportu ni5, of hearing the Petitioner Society as to lhe^proposed change of th: category in view of Tariff order passed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission with effect from O1-O8-2010.

¶52

The Le erned Senior Counsei for the petitioner furthr:r submitted that in view rf the orders passed by this Court, the Pt:titioner Society was given pe'sonal hearing by the respondent No.4 o r^(15. tO.2O17 and the petitione : m:rde submissions orally and in wr t.ing. The letter dated 25.o2. 1017 in Lr.No.SE/OP/RRC(S)/SAO/HT, D.No.720 issued by the respo rdent No.3, stating that the Petitioner Society has not submitted ar-^ y merit points for dropping the back I^r:lling notice and directed the I ociety to pay an amount of Rs.69.28,4C^). i -. Against the said notice, the petitioner approached this C orlrt and hled W.P.No. 10501 of 2017 and this Court has been ple: sed 1o allow the same on 24.C3.2O77 by setting aside the impugrred letter dated 25.02.2017 a rd remanded the matter for fresh cons ideration by the respondent Nr.3 herein after taking into account rf the objections raised by the )etitioner herein. The l,earned Counsel or the petitioner further submi :ted that in spite of the directions of tlris Court in two occasions, th: respondents without taking into rccount of the objections anr I without hearing t.lle^{petitioner.pasr;r:d} thc^present

¶53

{

¶54

SK.J WP No 7212 of20? I

¶55

impugned orders in Lr.No.SE/Op/CYBC/SAO/JAO/HT/D.No.59al 2O2O-21 dated 09.03.2021 calbng upon the petitioner demanding to pay an amount of Rs.64,28,4O0/_ within 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice- In the said letter, there was no ret-erence to the orders of this Court in W.p.No. 10S 02 of 2OIZ or the representation of the petitioner dated 18.01.2O17 which was directed to be considered by this Court. In spite of the direction passed by this Court to give opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the respondents without giving any opportunity of personal hearing while passing present impugned orders. The impugned orders passed by the respondents without considering the facts that the tariff order has no retrospective effect, classification of the category cannot be changed without notice to the consumer and the back billing caonot be done beyond of 6 months and the action of tl.e respondents amounts to contempt of Courts and liable to be set aside.

¶56

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for ttre respondents submits that the petitioner,s Service in the name of M/ s. power Welfare Society, under HT Category-Il witJ. a CMD of 630 KVA as per applicable Tariff Order of 2OO9-1O, there was no specific. category for construction so the service was released under "HT Category_Il NonIndustrial which was applicable to tJ:e petitioner nature of activity. The DPE wing conducted special drive programme for inspecting the services which are utilizing the power supply for construction purpose. The Petitioner Service connection was also inspected on OT .l2.2}lt

¶57

¶58

sK..l $ I, No 7231 ol 202l

¶59

,// /

¶60

and submit ed its inspection report regarding^in< riminating^points observed in respect of the service connection of the^petitioner. The initial Asse: sment Notice the Back Billing was tlone under HT Temporary Supply for the period from 01.O8.2010 tr 21.11.2011 and assessed to a tune of Rs.55,24,O8O/-. As per the Court orders, personal hea ring conducted where the petitioner di,l not submit any valid reasons to reconsider the issue. In view of the ;a.me, the present orders passe i and the petitioner without availing a Lternative remedy approached t ris Court and the same is liable to be di:;nrissed.

¶61

After h :aring both sides, this Court is of the considered view that admitte( ly, the petitioner approached this Cor l.1 earlier in two occasions fo the same said cause of action.^-lhi:; Court in W.P.No. 1829( oI 2Ol2 dated 12.O8.2O13 passe 1 the following direction:

¶62

"The [ rit Petition is accordingly allowed sl)tting aside the impugn rd letter-cum-consequential assessment frrr short billing dated 15.O3.2O12. The APCPDCL shall give due notice and opportu rity of hearing of the petitioner comp:Iny as to the propose, I change of the category in view of the tarilT order passed by the Eler:tricity Regulatory Commissron lritl-r effect from 01.08.2( 1O. The amount deposited by the pet lioner company pursuan I to the interim order of this Cor-rrt sh rll abide by the consider rtion of the matter by t}le APCPDCL an I the order that it may r ltimately pass in the matter. This e:rercise shall be

¶63

I I
6
- SK,J
WP.No.72l2 of 2071

¶64

completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than eight (g) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".

¶65

After basing of orders of tliis Court in W.p.No.1g2 96 of 2Ol2 dated 12.O8.2013, the respondents issued proceedings directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.64,2g,4oo/- without considering the request of weaver of back billing. Against the said orders, the petitioner herein Iiled W.p.No.10502 of 2OlZ and this Court was pleased to allow the Writ petition on 24.03.2017 by setting aside the orders dated 25.O2.2O1T with the following directions:

¶66

"Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned lerrer Lr.No.SE/Op/RRC(s)/SAO/HTlD.No.7 20 / 2OtT, dated 25.02.2017, and t}le matter is remanded for fresh consideration by respondent No.3 after taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner herein and alter giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. Till the said exercise attains hnality, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner herein. There shall be no order as to costs,,.

¶67

Thereafter, without taking into account of the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.IOSO2 of 2OlZ on 24.03.2017 and without mentioning the same, the respondents passed the present impugned orders. The respondents in their counter/argument not denied the order passed by this Court in W,p.No. 1O502 of 2OI7 on 24-O3.2O|Z and there is no answer about consideration of the objection raised by ttre petitioner and the respondents passed the impugned orders in a

SK.J

\r'P No 7ll2 ol 202l

casual man 1er without taking into account of the orders passed by this Court ir two occasions and passed the present rmpugned orders. In vie'"r, of tlre same, the impugned notice passed lry th<: respondent No.4 in Lr.Nr.SE/OP/CYBC/SAO/JAO/HT/D.No.59 r i 2O2O-2r d,ated 09.O3.2021 i; liable to be set aside and accordingly, s t:t as:de.

¶74

9 . In viev of the above directions, this Writ pt r jdon is allowed. There shall n I order as to costs.

¶75

Miscell rneous applications pending, if alr,, sha I stand closed.

¶76

STY- T. JAYASREE ASI iI I}TT,NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEt;11911 OFFICER

¶77

To,

¶78

1 Iif"t"r1:,fJ, Energy Department, Secretariat, Saifabe rt Hycerabad, State 2 The Man:agin1 Director, Vir r r a n s m r s s r o n I o rp o ra ti o n il +'"?r"rl'i s o m a^j i g ud a. H v : r:' ra b a d J 4. il^f ij},i1Hl^il:,$i:?:ffi Direclor, southern Power, I ir;trit ution company 5. i;"3fui,:i#;#f#["::"i{':ii,tlif ift^3E3,ii',,s'u'lh 6. if.f3,bJ.;p.di1,ifr{iLi1tr'Affi^{,fl:slii'ilfr} i,-;,,, 7o

¶79

I ffi E [ ?r,tSB,AEfl # ".^y ?ts H+riHh 0s 8? ; ] ]5 j il3 y^c r g Fj [i PSK. KKS

BSK

HIGH COUFIT

DATED:201' 212022

ORDER

WP.No.7232 ot 2021

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETTTION WITHOUT C 3STS.

¶86

\2 I^(J'1c

¶87

[³³⁰²¹

¶88

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA" AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶89

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶90

PRESENT

¶91

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶92

WRIT PETITION NO: 7232 OF 2021

¶93

Between:

¶94

Y/: ?qy",^{Welfgre Society Regd.No 1732 /2005, p WS-7,} Hiils. Survev No i 18. 119 and l68 Narsrngi, Rajendra Naqar Mandal, R.R. Districi Hvdeiabad Jgp^{by rts Secretary,C.V.B. Subrahmanyam,} S/o. Late Siva Ramhkrishna Hrndu, aged ?bout 67 y_ears, Occ. Retd. Service, R/o. Flat No.E_i01, 7 Hilld Apartments, Power Welfare Society. R.R.District.

¶95

...PETITIONER

¶96

AND

¶97

'l . The State of Telangana, rep.by its Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, HyderabEd.

¶98

The Transmission corooration. of rerangana, rep.by its Managing Director. ^^{Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda.ftyOeriOad- -'-" -'}

¶99

Southern Power Distri-b-ution C5mpany of Telangana Ltd., Rep.by its Chairman and Manaqino Director. Hvderabad "

¶100

The Superintending Eno='inee(Operaiion) CirCle, Ranga Reddy South, _ IgSPDC^{L, NanatnigarrX, no'ad", nJtnit} J*ti,^-Hvoi-raoao

¶101

lhe Assistant Divisional Engineer, Telangana St-ate Southern power Distribution Company Ltd., i-brahimbagh,hanga neOOy Olstrici.^-"-

¶102

...RESPONDENTS

¶103

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more fully one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in changing the classification of Supply to the petitioner society from HT Category-ll to Temporary Supply and levying the amount by issuing Notice dated 09_03_2021 in Lr.No.SE/oP/cYBCisAo/JAo/HT/ D.No. sg4t2o2o-21 of the 4th respondent herein calling upon the petitioner demanding to pay an amount of Rs.64,2g,4001 within 15 days from the date of receipt of said Notice, or else Service will be liable for disconnection as per prevailing rules is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the General rerms and conditions of Electricity Supply besides being

¶104

violative the Princilrles of Natural Justice and consequently di.ecl the respondents not to interfere witlr the service connection of the petrtioner No.RSS 12g9 of M/s. Power Welfare So:iety situated in Sy.No.118, 119 and 1(i8 of Narsingi village, Ranga Reddy Distr ct and given credit to the amount alreadv praid by the petitioner society under tem )orary service connection from March :2011 till the date of conversion to residontial category.

¶105

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶106

Petition unde'Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir r;r.rmstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court rna1, be pleased to Suspend the Operation of the Letter/Notice dat:d Og-03-2O21 in Lr.No.SE/OP/CYBC,SAO/JAO/HT/ D.No. S94|2O2O-21 of the 4th respondent pending disposal of he above Writ Petition in the interest of jtrstice

¶107

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶108

Between:

¶109

'1. Southern Powrr Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. Rep.by its Chairman and Manaqinq Director. Hvderabad^'

¶110

2 The Suqerinterrding Engine-e(Operaiion) Circle, Ranga F eddy South, ^^{JpS?DC!,Na ralnagar'X'Roads, Rethibowti, Hyderibarr}

¶111

The Assistant l)ivisional Engineer, Telanqana State Sout rern power Distribution Co npany Ltd., hrahimbagh,^-Ranga Reddy District.

¶112

...PETITIONERS/REI;PONDENTS 3 TO 5 AND

¶113

M/s. Power Welfare Society Regd. No.1732.12o05, p V1/S-7, Hills, Survey No. 118,'1^'9 and t68, Ndrsingi, Rajendra Nagai Mandal, R.R. Districi, lyderabad^{'ep.byits Secretary. C.V.e. Subratiman,arn, S/o. Late Siva} Ramakrishn l, Hindu, aged about 67 years, Occ. Reir. Se.vice, R/o. Flat No.E-101, 7 Hills Apartments,^power Welfare Society, R.R.Distri6t.

¶114

2 rhe state or rerangana. r.ep by its ."",.,;,:=":;::i#lrrroNER Secretariat, ]a ifa bad, Hydera6ad.

¶115

The Transmr;sion Corp6ration of Telangana, rep.by its lvlanaging Director, Vidyut Soudl ra. Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶116

...RESPONDENT/RESPfNDENT NO.1 & 2

¶117

Petition under S ection 151 CPC praying that in the circunstances stated in the affidavit filed in s rpport of the petition, the High court rray be pleased to

¶118

vacate the interim orders dated 3'1103/2021 in wp. No.7232 of 2021 and dismiss the writ petition

¶119

counsel for the Petitioner: sMT. K.SHESHA RAJYAM FoR sRr KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI

¶120

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 5: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO

¶121

The Court made the following; ORDER

¶122

TH 1 HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE^K.Sr.R.AI'H

¶123

I.IIT PETITION No. 7232 of^202't

¶124

ORDER:

¶125

This writ petition is filed for the^{following relief}

¶126

". . . . to issi re a ruit, order or direction^more fullg^rtne irt^{'i:l.-natlLre} of Wit o1 Mandamus declartng^{tle action of the. respttnderlts in} changing the clossirtcation of Supplg to the^{petition?rso<:ietg} from^{HT Category-|1to TemporarySupply andle t11ingthe} amount by issaing Notice dated^{()9.03.:'0'-21in} Lr.No.SEt OP/ CYBC/ SAO/^{JAO/ HT/ D.No.594/2024'21 of the} responde; t No.4 herein calling upon the^petitionerd "-ntaruling to pau ar amount of Rs.64,28,4O0/-^{tuithin 1:; dags} liom^the date of rt ceipt of said^Notice, or^{etse Seruice toill be thble} for disconneclion as^{per preuatling rules is ttthollyilLegal,orbitrlry,} unjrct an C contrary to^tlLe General^{Termsanri ConTition:; of} Electicitg Supply besides being^{uiolatiue the Pincipiesof} Natural Jl rstice and^{consequentlgdirect the responde,lt:;notto} interfere t t.tith the seruice connection of the^{p€fitione. .Yo.RSS} 1289of N/s. Power Welfare^Society situated^{in Sy.No.i18, !19} & 168 of I^rarsingi uillage,^{Ranga ReddyDistict (tnd git't:'t credit} to the an ount alreadA^paid by^{the petitioner society under} temporary seruice connection from March 2011^{till tlu date} of conuersior to re sidential^{cotegory... "}

¶127

Heard S mt. K.Shesha Rajyam, Learned Senior C()un.sel for the petitioner an( Sri R.Vinod Reddy, karned Standi ng Counsel for Telangana St, rte Southern^Power Distribution^{CornpanyLimited,} appearing for I he resPondents.

¶128

)

¶129

I
. SK.J
wP.No.7232 of202 t

¶130

The Leamed Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a registered Society under the provisions of A.p.Societies Act, 2001 bearing No.1735/2O05. During the year 2009, the society has undertaken the construction of residential complex in Sy.No. l1g, 119 and 168 of Narsingi village, Ranga Reddy District and approached Respondent Corporation for providing power Supply of 63O KVA contacted maximum demand in a phased manner. After completion of all the formalities, the Respondent corporation entered into Agreement for supply of High Tension Electricity. While it being so, the respondent No.S herein has issued a letter dated 15.O3.2012 bearing Lr.N0.ADE/OP/Ibrahimbagh/ D.N0.706 alleging that the service connection of the^petitioner Society was inspected on 07.11.2011 and made allegations viz., i) the consumer is availing 3 phase healthy supply , (ii) the CMD of the HT service is 630 KVA and the serrrice is being billed under HT-II Category, (iii) the consumer is utilizing the supply for the purpose of construction only, (iv) the service falls under HT Temporary supply and (v) proposed to bir the HT Service under HT Temporary supply category. Without considering reply of the Petitioner Society, tJle Respondent Corporation has issued a Demand d,ated. 26.04.2O 12 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.55,24,Oa2 /- on or before 1O-0S-2012 and the back billing was done from O1-O8-201O i.e., for more than 6 mont]s. It is further submitted t]lat having left with no other alternative the petitioner Society has

¶131

¶132

----v,/

¶133

SK.J. \'l) No 72-'i2 ol 2021

¶134

Iiied W.P.No. 18296/2012 and this Court by it,;^()rder dated 12.08.2013 rllou'ed the Writ Petition setting aside th3 impugned lettercum-conseq lential assessment for short billing c ated 15.03.2O12. This Court f rrther directed that the respondents sh rll be given Notice and opportu nity of hearing the Petitioner Societl, a; to the proposed change of th: category in view of Tariff order passed by ttre Electricity Regulatory C ommission with effect from O1-O8-2O10.

¶135

The Le rrned Senior Counsel for the petitioner [u rthr:r submitted that in view rf the orders passed by this Court, the Petitioner Society was given pe sonal hearing by the respondent No.4 o r^()5. 10.2017 and the petitione : made submissions orally and in wr tir-rg. The letter dated 25.O2. 1017 in Lr.No.SE/OPlRRC(S)/SA()/HT, D.No.720 issued by the respo rdent No.3, stating that the Petitioner Society has not submitted ar y merit points for dropping the back l,ilJing notice and directed the f^,ociety to pay an amount of Rs.69.28,4C 1 i -. Against the said notice, the petitioner approached this Court and frled W.P.No. 1O5O! of 2017 and this Court has been ple:std to allow the same on 24.C3.2O17 by setting aside the impugrred letter dated 25.02.2017 a rd remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the respondent Nr.3 herein after taking into account cf the objections raised by the letitioner herein. The karned Corrnsel i)r the petitioner further submi:ted ttrat in spite of the directions of tlrrs Court in two occasions, th: respondents without taking rnto rccount of the objections an,l without hearing the petitioner.^pasrnrd tl're^present

¶136

¶137

::4::

¶138

SK.J wP.N0 72i2 ol 202l

¶139

impugned orders in Lr.No.SE/OplCYBC/SAO/JAO /HT/D.No.Sg4/ 2O2O-27 dated O9.03.202I cailing upon the petitioner demanding to pay an amount of Rs.64,28,4O0/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice. In the said letter, there was no reference to tJle orders of this Court in W.p.No.10S02 of 2OlT or tl-re representation of the petitioner dated 1g.01.2017 which was directed to be considered by this Court. In spite of the direction passed by this Court to give opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the respondents without giving any opportunity of personal hearing while passing present impugned orders. The impugned orders passed by the respondents without considering the facts that the tariff order has.no retrospective efGct, ciassi{ication of the category cannot be changed without notice to the consumer and the back billing cannot be done beyond of 6 months and the action of the respondents amounts to contempt of Courts and liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Petitioner,s Service in the name of M/ s. Power Welfare Society, under HT Category_Il with a CMD of 63O KVA as per applicable Tariff Order of 2OOg-lO, there was no specific. category for construction so the service was released under,,HT Category_ll Non_ Industrial which was applicable to the petitioner nature of activityThe DPE wing conducted special drive programme for inspecting the services which are utilizing the power supply for construction purpose. The ?etitioner Service connection was also inspected on OT.L2.2A7|

¶140

¶141

SK.J u t' No 72il ol 201I

¶142

¶143

and submit ed 1ts inspection report regarding in( r'iminating points observed in respect of the service connection of the petitioner. The initial Asser .sment Notice the Back Billing was clonr. under HT Temporary S upply for the period from O1.O8.20I0 tr 2i. t 1.2O11 and assessed to a tune of Rs.55,24,O80/-. As per the Court orders, personal hee ring conducted where the petitioner dil not submit any valid reasons to reconsider the issue. In view of the ;ame, the present orders passe I and the petitioner without availing a rernative remedy approached t 1is Court and t}re same is liable to be dit.misst;d.

¶144

After h:aring both sides, this Court is of the <;onsidered view that admitte( .ly, tJle petitioner approached t}is Cor- rr eariier in two occasions fo' the same said cause of action. This Court in W.P.No.1829( of 2O12 dated 72.O8.2O13 passe,l thr: following direction:

¶145

"The^tlrit Petition is accordingly allou'ed s(:rring aside the impugn )d letter-cum-consequential assessment for short billing dated 15.O3.2O12. The APCPDCL shall give due notice and opportu rity of hearing of the petitioner com oany as to the propose,l change of tJre category in view of the tariff order passed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission t ith effect from 01.08.2( 10. The amount deposited by the pet tioner company pursuan : to the interim order of this Court sh,rli abicle by the consider rtion of the matter by the APCPDCL an,l the order that it may r ltimately pass in ttre matter. This e;:ercise shall be

¶146

¶147

' SK,J WP No 7212 of202l

¶148

completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than eight (B) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ol this order".

¶149

After basing of orders of this Court in W.p.No. lg2 96 of 2Ol2 dated 12.08.2013, the respondents issued proceedings directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.64,28,400/- without considering the request of weaver of back billing. Against the said orders, the petitioner herein Iiled W.P.No.1O502 of 2OI7 and this Court was pleased to allow t-Ile Writ petition on 24.03.2017 by setting aside the orders dated 25.02.2017 w.ith the following directions:

¶150

"Accordingly, the Writ^petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned letter Lr.No. SE/ Op/ RRC(s) / SAO/ HT/ D.No.7 20 I 20 IZ, d,ated, 25.02.20 i7, and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration by respondent No.3 after taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner herein and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. Till the said exercise attains fina1ity, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner herein. There shali be no order as to costs".

¶151

Thereafter, without taking into account of the direction grven by this Court in W.P.No.1OSO2 of 2OlZ on 24.03.2012 and without mentioning the same, ttre respondents passed the present impugned orders. The respondents in their counter/argument not denied tJ:e order passed by this Court in W.p.No. 10502 of 2O!Z on 24.03-2012 and there is no answer about consideration of the objection raised by the petitioner and the respondents passed the impugned orders in a

¶152

¶153

SK,J $'l) No 72ll ot 2021

¶154

casual man 1er without taking into account of the orders passed by this Court L two occasions and passed the present lrnpugned orders. In view of tJ re same, the impugned notice passed l)y tho respondent No.4 in Lr.N I.SE/OP/CYBC/SAO/JAO/HT/D.No.59 1 I 2O2O_21 dated 09.O3.2O2I i: lialtle to be set aside and accordingly, s.ct asjde. 9. L.r vier r of the above directions, this Writ pr l ition is allowed. There shall n I order as to costs-

¶155

Miscell rneous applications pending, if any, sha I stand closed.

¶156

SE)/. T. JAYASREE i ASI;II;TA}+TREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// J ( lLl SECTION OFFICER

¶157

To,

¶158

1 Jii.a,r"""J:,f;,^{Energy Departmenl, Secretariat,Saifabart} Hy,Jerabad, State

¶159

2 The Man-agin-c Director. Vir jisuda,Hv:erabad

¶160

J +lT,:Tl:.1"r-r",.r",rt,".1|1'"?r""19j.1soma di^{T"iJli3ffi i n:,ffi:|Si:%} D ireclor' southern P owe r r ) i stri b u tion c ompa n y

¶161

1. i.!iits"iffi^{,:',1n,#qff€:("",'.:E:i,{llff['?f;} 3?ga,*eddysouth Ihe Assistant )ivis,o-nal En

¶162

6 i,"1iffi^{"t:iliry.ri{i'gl1rT*,&ffi [fi ljt$Ji;iH,",*,,,} 7 o pff

¶163

o E g isj [i A TFSyAEA ff ". 3 ?3 H+IFHI 0s b?, i r;Jr]8 j,. 1

PSK. KKS

BSK

HIGH COUIIT

DATED:201'1212022

ORDER

WP.No.7232 of 2021

--::<br>.1 -Ari,- ': -.
!
lr.
(J
l'I
: ,::
t
sq,
ti

¶171

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶172

\i-
;f"%.

M/s. Power Welfare Society Regd. No.1732./2005, v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Power Welfare Society Regd. No.1732./2005, v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

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

Mohd. Putileebee Vs Principal Secretary to Government

M/S.Jeevaka Industries Ltd. Vs the C.P.D.C of A.P and 3 Others

M.Prabhakar Rao Vs State of Telangana, And 4 Others

Mohd Naseer Ahmed Vs The District Collector

M/s.Rapelli Rajanna Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Tanveer Pasha Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited