Disposed

Om Sri Sairam Electricals v. Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Telangana HC6 Apr 2023WP/9364/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 9364 of 2023, filed by Om Sri Sairam Electricals against the respondent electric companies. The Court held that the issue was squarely covered by a previous order dated 16.04.2008 in Writ Petition No. 21B5 of 2008 and disposed of the matter accordingly without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 16.04.2008 in Writ Petition No. 21B5 of 2008 without costs.

Om Sri Sairam Electricals Vs Northern Power… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ' (Special AT Original HYDERABADJurisdiction)

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9364 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Om Sri Sairam Electricals, Rep. by its Proprietor S. Vinay Kumar Reddy S/o S. Narayan Reddy Aged 54 years Rl/o Morthad Nizamabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Having its corporate office at Warangal

¶12

2 Telangana State Power Coordination Committee, Rep. by its Secretary, Vidyut Saudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad

¶13

Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Red hills, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue.Writ or direction preferably Writ of mandamus, declaring the Memo dt. 18- 3-2019 changing the category of private SPM sheds from LTcategory-lll to L.T. Category -ll with effect from 1-9-2017 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural^justice and violative of Art.14 of Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same and also the arrears claimed in the bills pertaining Morthad, Nizamabad Unit of the petitioner vide service no. 5030102696 USC No. 13'16007'l and further direct the respondents to continue categorization of the petitioner's private SPM Sheds in LT category lll itself.

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Memo dt.1 8-3- 201 9 issued by the respondent no.^'l pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶18

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of electricity bill dt.8- 03-2023 in respect of service connection no. 50301-02696; USC No. 13'1 60071 of Morthad, Nizamabad unit of the petitioner pending disposal of the writ^petition in the interest of^justice

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURYA BALU MAHENDRA

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI ZAKIR ALI DANISH, SC FOR TSNPDCL

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENI/AS RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.9364 of 2o23

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition is hled for seeking the following reliei "...to issue Wit or direction preferablg Writ of Mandamus, declaing the Memo dt.18.03.2019 changing the category of piuate SPM sheds from LT-categorg-Ill to L.T.Category-II uith effect from O 1 .09.20 1 7 as illegal, arbitrary and uiolatiue of principles of natural justice and uiolatiue of Art.14 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and also the arrears claimed in the bills pertatning to Morthad, Nizamabad unit of the petitioner uide Seruice No.503O1-02696; USC No.1316O071 and further direct the respondents to continue categorization of the petitioner's priuate SPM Sheds in LT category-Ill itself .

¶27

Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the I-earned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶28

The issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order, dated 16.04.2008, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.21B5 of 2008, the operative portion of which reads as under

¶29

)

¶30

"Clause 35 of the Terms and Conditions of Suppty reads as under:

¶31

Reclassrf cation of consumers and Reuision of bills:

¶32

"Where a consttmer has been classifted under a particular category and b billed acardinglg and it is subsequentlg obserued that the classification is not correct, the Board may alter the classification and suitably reutse the bills if necessary euen retrospectiuelg . "

¶33

I haue giuen serious thought to the submisslon of the learned Standing Counsel that there is no requirement for the respondents to giue a notice under the aboue-reproduced condition, and I am not inclined to accept the same. It cannot be doubted that change of classtfication results in aduerse consequences to the consumer.

¶34

Lanl is well settled that uhen an action is proposed to be taken, tuhich i-s likelg to aduerselg affect the interests .of o partg, he is entitled to a notice. The Apex Court, time and again, held that unless a stotutory prouision specifically excludes the reqQ'ement of obseruation of principles of 't natural justice, such a requirement shall be read

¶35

tnto the prouision. (See Sutadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. V. Union of India and Maneka Gandhi u. Union of India).

¶36

A penLsal of the aboue-reproduced condition shotus that the requirement of giuing a notice i.s not expressly done away with. Therefore, applging the settled legal pinciples as mentioned aboue, Condition No.35 of the Tenns and Condittons shall be read as requiring the respondents to i-ssue a notice before changing the classification of the petitioner. Since such a notice uas, admittedly, not giuen, the action of the respondents in changing the petitioner's category from HT Category I to HT Category II is liable to be declared as uoid. Since the respondents are being directed to issue notice to the petitioner and decide the claim of the petitioner that it shoutd be categorized under HT Category I, I deem tt appropriate to dispose of this Wit Petition in the following terms:

¶37

I )

¶38

Within a peiod of four Lueeks from the date of receipt of a copg of this order, respondent No.3 shall giue notice to the petitioner against th.e proposed change of classification.

{ (

Within a period of tuo ueeks thereafter, the petitioner shall file its objections.

¶43

On receipt'of objections, respondent No.3 shall dbpose of the same before taking a final decision on the proposed recla.ssiJication.

¶44

Since the action of reclassiftcation ts declared uoid, the respondents shall adjust the excess amount paid by the petitioner totuards differential tunff in tLe immediate future electicitg bills.

¶45

Subject to the aboue dtrections, the Writ Petition is disposed of."

¶46

Following the above said order and for the reasons recorded therein, this Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof

¶47

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶48

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶49

SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ! ,,-...,rl ) SECiIdN oFFICER

¶50

¶51

To,

¶52

The Chairman and Managing Director, Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Having its corporate of{ice at Warangal

¶53

T_he Secretary, Telangana State Power Coordinatron Committee, Vidyut Saudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad

¶54

The Secretary, Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Red hills, Hyderabad.

¶55

One CC to SRI SURYA BALU MAHENDRA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

One CC to SRI ZAKIRALI DANISH, SC FORTSNPDCL [OPUC]

¶57

Two CD Copies

GJPq,_-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610412023

ORDER

WP.No.9364 of 2023

1 HE S r4I t'
v-{ -.<br>('
o 15 }lIY 2rr8
i\,,_-

¶65

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

Om Sri Sairam Electricals v. Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Sri Sairam Electricals v. Northern 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Raghavan Nair Vs V.C. and M.D., A.P. Housing Board and 14 Oths

M/s. Bnju Metals and Alloys Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

M/s. Sai Rose Heavy Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ap Transco, rep. by its Chief Managing Director

Kantilal , KantilalSugandhi Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mirza Jahangir Baig Vs The State of Telangana

S.Gyaneshwar Giri Vs The State of Telangana