Allowed

Anjaneyulu v. M/s Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Telangana HC13 Apr 2023WP/27560/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Final Assessment Order for short billing of electricity consumption from 2012. The Court held that the demand was barred by the two-year limitation period under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the Final Assessment Order was declared illegal and barred by limitation. The amounts paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted against future bills.

Anjaneyulu Vs M/s Southern Power… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^321e 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: 27560 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Anjaneyulu, S/o Kashanna, Age. 48 years, Occ. Bu'siness. R/o H No 2-46, Naganool village, Nagarkurnool Mandal, Nagarkurnool District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 I,4/s Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, represented by rts Chairman and tvlanaging Director, Corporate Office at D.No 6-1-150. 5th Floor, B-Block, Mint Compound, Hyderabad

¶12

The Drvisional Engineer, Electrical (Operation), Southern Power Drstribution Company of Telangana Limited, Nagarkurnool, Nagarkurnool District.

¶13

3 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Operation, South Central Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Nagarkurnool.

¶14

..,RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnclia praying that rn the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hrgh Courl may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 2nd Respondent in issuing Final Assessment Order (Short Billing) vide Order No DP/OP/NGKL/TECH/FAO/D No. 815, Dated 26-5-2022 rn Case No DPEi NGKL/SD)1154312022 demanding the petitioner to pay huge amount of Rs 2 94, 165/- towards Short Billing in respect of the Service Connectron of the petrtioner vide Service Connection No. 151300476 without issr-ring any prior notice or drsclosing any particulars thereof, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of princrples of natural justice apart from being contrary to the provisions contained in lhe Electricity Act, 2003 and the rule made there under. and consequently to sat the same

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed in support of the petition. the Hrgh Court may be pleased, pending disposal of the writ petition direct the respondents not to insist the petitioner to pay full amount of Rs Rs.2,94,165/- covered by the Final Assessment Order (Short Billing) vide Order No DP/OP/NGKL/TECH/FAO/D.No. 815, Dated. 26-5-2022 in Case No DPE/NGKLISD\1154312022 issued by the 2nd Respondent.

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶19

Between:

¶20

Ir//s Southern Power Distrrbutron Company of Telangana^{Limited,represented} by its Chairman and [\4anaging D rector, Corporate Oflice at^{D.No.6-1-150,} 5th Floor, B-Block, Minl Conrpourrd. Hyderabad

¶21

The Divisional Engineer. Electrrcal (Operation). Sottthern^{Power Distribution} Company of Telangana Limrted. Nagarkurnool,^{NagarkurnoolDistrict.}

¶22

The Asst. Divisional Engtneer Operatton. South Central^{Power Distribution} Company of Telangana Limited Nagarkurnool.

¶23

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶24

AND

¶25

Anjaneyulu, S/o Kashanna, Age 48 years. Occ Bustness, R/o H.No.2-46, Naganool village. Nagarku rnool lVand al. Nagarkurnool District.

¶26

... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶27

Petrtion under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Court maybe pleased to} vacate the interim orders dated 30 06 2022 in WP No 2756C of 2022 and dismiss the writ petition.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.VENKATESH GUPTA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.VINOD REDDY,^SC

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶31

W.P.No. 27560 of 2022

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

In this writ petition, the peLitior-rer is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the final assessment bill dateci 26.05.2022 demanding the petitioner to pay an amounL oi iis.?,94,165/- towards short billing, as illegal and arbitrarl'.

¶34

karned counsel for thc rlctiLroltcr submittcd that the respondents have issued the s:rrrl bill on thc ground that there has been short-billing oI thc po',vcr consLlnter o[ the petitioner in the year 2OI2 and thereforc, lhc bill iaised in the year 2022, is barred by the limitation unclcr Scction 56(2) of the Electricity Act.

¶35

Learned Standing Ccunsc! I-o r Lhe respondcnts relied upon the averments made in the counter afhdavit and submitted that there u,as a bonirllric misrake in billing of consumption charges of the petitioncr and on rcalizing the said mistake, the demzrnC has bccr.r rarsr:d in the r.ear 2022. lfe further submitted that tir,., 1)ctlr rollcr has ltaid 50% of the

¶36

¶37

PMD,J W.P.No. 27560 of 2022

¶38

i i I I i i i i

¶39

demanded arnount ancl an appeal lies with the Superintendent Engincer aird thcrelorc (hc petitioner may be directed to file an appeal bclore tlle Supennte nde nt Engineer and said appeal may be dircctccl ro b<: disposed of.

¶40

I-earned counsci lbr thc petitioner however, submitted that thc petitioncr in repir to the show cause notice, had stated that thc clcrr;rrrd r.r.ith rcqarci to the consumption of power in the year 20 I 2. c annr;t l>e ruisccl rn lhe year 2022 and hence the contcntiort r,f iimirrrtion comes into play and has to be considcrccl.

¶41

Har'1nq |r'qarci ro thL: rir.al colltentions and the material on record, t}'ris ('ourr i'incls rhat thc department is bound by the provisiot'ts ol I,llr:r.Lricttv ,\ct and can raise the demand with regard Lo tll(, roltsumptton charges within a period of two years from t]rc clLrt. rlirte ol the bill. Admittedty, the demand raised for raised bills lol rhe sar<l consr:rnption in the year 2012 and also in thc r car 20 I 8 ancl Lhe petitior-rer has made the payments of thc saicl irlls. ii ar all, tltcn: \ras any short-billing, it should Irar.t: Irc.r'r ri..i, irI tltt. s:ric] tir.c in the year 2072 or 2018 and

¶42

¶43

PMD.J w.P.No, 27s6o ol 2022

¶44

not in the year^{2A22 . I} t^{is therefore,clearthat the demand} raised in the year 2022 is barred by the^{period of limitation} prescribed under Scctiorr 56(2) of the Electricity Act and^the amounts paid'cy lhe^{petrtioner towards 50% of the same shall} be adjusted by the respondents towards future bills of^the petitioner.

¶45

Accordingll', il-ris u'ril pctition is allowed. There shall^be no order as to costs

¶46

Misccllancous pctitrons, if any,^pending in this^writ petition, shali stand cioscd

¶47

,TRUE COPY//

¶48

SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTftAR v/

¶49

SECTION 6FFICER

¶50

To 1. lvl/s Charrman and Manaqrnq Director, Southern Power Distribution Conpany of Telangana Limited,^{CoipoiateOfficeat D.No.6-1-150,Sth Floor' B-Block'} 4,4 int Compound, Hyderabad.

¶51

The Divisional Engineer.^{Electrical (Operation), Southern Power Distribution} Comoanv of Telariqana^{Limited, Nagarkurnool, NagarkurnoolDistrict}

¶52

3 The Asst. Drvrsronil^{Engineer, Operation,SouthCentral Power Distribution} Company of Telangana^{I rmtted. Nagarkurnool.}

¶53

4 One'cC io SRt K VENKATESH^{GUPTA, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶54

5 One CC to SRI^{R VINOD REDDY, SC} [OPUC]

¶55

6 Two CD Copies

¶56

S K r l_ S (->-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310412023

(

ORDER

WP.No.27560 ot 2022

C'
,,i
&b
\s] <br>ii
+* :t
''.:. (a)
.l'' .ii,
'N'
.'?,
'i.
\ ,,1
-r.;-._,,

¶63

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶64

Anjaneyulu v. M/s Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjaneyulu v. M/s Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

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

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

Vardeboina Babu Vs The District Collector

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