Disposed

My Gym v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited and 3 Others

Telangana HC13 Apr 2023WP/10524/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a disputed electricity bill and alleged illegal inspection. The High Court held that the dispute involved factual issues best adjudicated by the Divisional Engineer, to whom an appeal had already been filed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Divisional Engineer to consider and pass appropriate orders within one month and stay coercive steps pending his decision.

My Gym Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

1321e I

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10524 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

MY GYM, Rep. by its proprietor, P. Ram Mohan Rao, S/o P. Swamy, Age. 31 years, Occ. Business, 1-2-39110 and 11/G4, Nizampet, Hyder nagar, Miyapur, Serilingampally, Hyderabad, Telangana-500072,

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited and 3 Others, Vidyuth Soudha Somajiguda Hyderabad. Rep by its Chairman cum Managing Director.

¶12

2 The Superintending Engineer, Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶13

J The Divisional Engineer, Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Gachibowli, Rangareddy Dist.

¶14

4 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Miyapur, Rangareddy Dist.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in conducting the alleged inspection on 23-Oct-2O21 at the premises of^petitioners business in the absence of the petitioner or his representatives and declare the short billing notice dated 30-Nov-2021 as illegal, arbitrary, against the^principles of natural^justiceand violative of procedure laid down under the Replacement of Meters of Central Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd , Gdneral Terms and Conditions Of Supply GTCS and further illegally^forcing the^petitioner to^pay the entire

¶17

disputed bill amount to the^{tune of Rs 65,983.00 withoutsett ing tlle sameand} without considering 50 '/o of^{the bill already paid by the petitroneran I threatening} to disconnect the elecl^{-ic power supplyin the petitioners business premisesat} Plot No. 135, Sy No 44i 1^{tvliyapur,Chandanagar'Rangla Reddy District,} Telangana-500072 witi out following^{procedure underSe,:tion ,' 5 - Replacement} of Meters of Centra F ower Distribution^{Companyof Telangana [.td} ,^General Terms and Conditions Of Supply^{GTCSas arbitrary, illegal ,rnd ir violationof} principles of natural^j,tstice and conlrary to Articles 14,^{19 and 21 of the} Constitution of lndia ar^C consequently^{direct the 4th respondert to -efund the 50} 7o amount already^p,ai 1on^{2O-Jan-2022to the tune of Rs 32,192/ againstthe} alleged short billing^{anr I} Pass

¶18

(Prayer amended as 5 er Court Order dated^{23.O1.2023in l.r.lt'|o.2of 2022.1}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under S action^{151 CPC praying that in the cir';ums:ancesstated} in the affidavit filed in ;upport^{of the petition,the High Oourtn;ry tre pleasedto} direct the third^respr ndenl^{not to disconnect the electric itrr supply to the} petitioners M/s MY iYlV situated in the^premises bea'irg^PlotNo.135, Sy.No.44l1 , Mryapur, )handanagar.^{Ranga Reddy Distrrct, --e lanllana-500072,} pending disposal of tht nrarn writ^petrtton

¶21

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶22

Petition uncler S ection^{151 CPC prayingthat in the cir:umstances stated} in the affidavit filed in ;upport^{of the petition, the HighC:ourt rnzry be pleasedto} amend the prayer in th -.^{'/vrit Petitron no 10524of 2O22as fol o,vs: lt is therefore} prayed that this Hon' rle Court nray be^pleased to^{issuea Iorder,writ more} particularly in the na.ure of writ of mandamus^{declaring tl} e^{actionof the} respondents in corrd rcting the^{allegedinspectionrrn 2li-oct"2021at the} premises of petitione r's business in the absence of^]:he lletitioner^{or his} representatives and dr clare^{the short billing notice date,i30-l'lov-2'12'1as illegal,} arbitrary, against thr: l,rincrples^{of natural justiceand vrolativ': lf procedurelaid} down under the^{'Repl:coment of lr,4etersof central Power Dir;tribuiion company} of Telangana Ltd.. Cle^{re.al Termsand Conditions Of Suppty (Gfcli)'andfurther}

¶23

illegally forcing the petitioner to pay the entire disputed bill amount to the tune of Rs.65,983.00 without settling the same and without considering 50% of the bill already paid by the petitioner and threatening to disconnect the electric power supply in the petitioner's business premises at Plot No.135, Sy.No.4411 Miyapur, Chandanagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana-500072 without following procedure under Section 7.5 - Replacement of Meters of Central Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd., General Terms and Conditions Of Supply (GTCS) as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles 14, 19 and 2'1 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 4th respondent to refund the 50% amount already paid on 2O-Jan-2O22 to the tune of Rs. 32,992/- against the alleged short billing.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SRIKANTH CH

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. R VINOD REDDY(SC FOR TSTRANSCO) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON( URABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI I)E/I

¶27

W.P.No. 10524 oI 2o22

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The learn:d counseL for the petitioner l-ras fiLro a memo dated 24.03.20! 3 to read thc documents filed tlre re v,rrh :,s part of the record as Pages -18 & lB(a).

¶30

The same are taken on rccord:rnd shall bc rca,l ,rs i)ages_ 18 & 18(a).

¶31

In this u rii petition, rltc itcririoner is cha[:r.girg the action of the res :ondents in dt:martriing thc petirio.lor t: p.ry the entire disputed rills to the [rrnc ol Rs. (r.5,r]g3/-. lr r_s subrnitted that the petitirn:r has alretrrlr irlrrci 50,,/,r .f tlte tnt..rrL: ar d has already filed an rppc:Ll befort: tJrc rL:s;;ondcnl No.3.

¶32

Learned < ounsel for tltc ytcriIionr:r subrnirturl th:.t the petitioner had it riliall-y seltt il)('.rpil(,irl to thc trclcrr:r;s grr,e, in the website and srnce 'r-hc srrrrtr: rras rcturned^.urr,st I vec^., the petitioner has a gain verificc lltc corrccl address an:j setrt lhe appeal to thc r-espondenL Nt.: .l on ()?,.O1.2022.

¶33

It is sut mittcd th:ri rlrt i-espondcnt Nr> 3 ha:, not considered tlrr: r pleerl of thc pL:titroncr so lar irrtrI t tr. D]csent

¶34

¶35

PUD,J w.P.tIo. 10524 oI2022

¶36

writ petition is filed both challenging the demand raised and also for compensation for the injustice caused to the petitioner.

¶37

Learned counsels for the respondents have filed their counter affidavirs of the respective respondents.

¶38

Learned Standing counsel submitted that the petitioner has raised various factual issues and they can be considered by the Divisional Engineer i.c., respondent No.3, if the appeal was filed before him

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the copy of envclop which has been retumed with the postal endorsement 'addrcssee left". He has also filed the Postal^'lrack Consignment report to dcmonstrate that the appeal has bcen scrwed on the respondent No.3 on 04.O1.2022.

¶40

Learned counsel for the pelitioner had submitted that there was no inspcction conducted by the authorities as alleged by the respondcnts and therefore, the demand raised for short billing, was illegal and arbitrary

¶41

Having rcgard to the rival contentions and material on record, this Court finds that thesc are fac[uai issues, which can

¶42

¶43

PMD,J W P No 1Oa24 of2022

¶44

only be consid,:red arrd adjudicated by the auLhcrrtv :or cerned i.e., the respor rdent No.3 herein, before w,horn tn appcal has already been fi ecl. Therefore, this Court dccm:; ir fit r:nd propcr to direct the rr spondent No.3 to consider ar-rd pass .) lpr upri.rte orders withirr e period of one (1) rnonrh from tire cja rc of recerpt of a copy of thi ; order. Till a decrsion is taken lrv -hc r:sF onde nt No.3, no coerci re steps shall be taken agarnsi the pcrriior <:r.

¶45

1 1. Accordin 4lv, this writ petition is disposr:d oi. I he:c shall be no order zrs -o costs,

¶46

Miscell.ar.eous petitions, if any, pcndinc r:- thrs ririt

¶47

petition, shall : tand closed.

¶48

SI)/. K. AMMAJI ASSIS T,qN.T REGISTRAR ) t CT ror'flr-ircen

¶49

//TRUE COPYII

¶50

To,

¶51

1 The Chairman cr tm Manaqing Director Southern power. Distr_ibution Company glll:.ls^:,T^t-i n ited, vidlutfi souo n a 5;;; ji;; r"Fi yo e r,, b ad

¶52

2 lne 5uperlntend no Enoineer, Southern powbi Distrl5utiorr <;onrpany of 3 Igl, I ne^pqle utvtstonat^Lim t^it(,d: loineer. Southern power^{vidiuthSbrd [;, s;r;,s"rol.} diitributioir^]jvior.rr,, conto Iiny of Telangana Limited. Gachibc,,,rli, Ra;gareddy Dis1.^-

¶53

4 Ihe Assistant Di risionar Engine6r, Southern power Distribut on company of Telan_gana Limitt d, Miyapur] nanqaieJJv Dirt"""'^"'

¶54

5 9ne 9C^{to Srr. I.rikanth.CH,} Advbcate iOpucr r)7 Two 9n" CD Copies99^{to Sri F Vinod Reddy(sdF<tiiSinANSCo)} [()F,UC)]

TJ SB

?r^q.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1 3l04li 023

ORDER

WP.No.10524lfi 2022

DISPOSING OI: THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSiTS.

¶63

?t4C.. r a\s\r-s'

My Gym v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

My Gym v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited and 3 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

N.a.Panjawani Vs Central Power Distribution Company of Ap. Limited

Andhra Pradesh Primary Teachers Association, Vs the Government of a.P., and Ano.

M/s. Avi Additives (P) Ltd., Plot No.4, Vs The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory

Anjaneyulu Vs M/s Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Vardeboina Babu Vs The District Collector

M/s. N R Agri Science, Vs The State of Telangana