Disposed

Rocksand Mineral Private Limited v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Tg Ltd. and 2 Others

Telangana HC6 Sept 2024WP/31567/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging disconnection of HT power supply and recovery notice raised for alleged short billing, contending the demand was barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Interim stay of demand was earlier granted subject to payment of Rs.25,00,000/-. The Court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rocksand Mineral Private Limited Vs Southern… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

l32s2l

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 31567 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Rocksand lvlineral Private Limitq9..^Registered under Companies Act .1956, Having its registered office at 203, V"Uaya enif ave^-p'iot' No 32. Sii.JsJi Colony, Hyderabad Re by its l\ranager. tid Jna n-Ofrrf fif i i Ventata Rao^-. -

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

1 Southern Power Distribution Comp y of TG Ltd , Compound , Hyderabad, Eep Qy^{its Chairman andManaginjDiiector.}

¶12

1. IJl" iyl-:lft_"*ent^{Engineer, -so"uthernpowerDistribution Companyof TG}

¶13

1 The LIo. uperatron Circle, Assistant Divisional Fnoineer, [4edak. at Sanoa Southern'power Reddv Distribution Company of TG Ltd, Operation, Gummadidala. Medak

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petitron under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus decraring the action of the respondents in drsconnecting the power suppry to the petitioner service connection vide bearing No.sGR 943 CAT-HT.rA, by issuing a HT Assessment carcuration vide case No. sGRD/PTCR/GMDD1HT272612'1, dated 11t1112021, without their being any mention of service disconnection, which is prima facie barred by limitation and susbsequent recovery Notice dated zrt11t2o21 issued by the respondent no.3, without following the prescribed procedure contemprated under law as ilegar, arbitrary and against the provisions of section 56(2) of rhe Erectricity Act, 2oo3 and consequently direct the respondents to restore the power supply to the petitioner service connection vide bearing No.sGR 943 CAT-HT.lA, forthwith by setting aside the HT Assessment Calculation vide Case No. sG RD/PTC R IGMDD/ Hr 27 26 /21, dated 1 1 t I 1 I 2021 and susbsequent recovery Notice dated 27t1112021 issued by the respondent no.3

¶16

t*::.^: --.rl,it. ; I

¶17

IA NOi 10F²⁰²¹

¶18

Petition under^{Section 151CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Crurtmay be pleasedto} direct the respondents^{to restore the power supplyk) the petitionerservice} connection^{videbearing No.SGR 943 CAT-HT.lA, by suspendingthe HT} ASseSSmentCalculationvideCaseNo,SGRD/PTCR/GIVIDD/HT2726121'dated lltlll2o2landsusbsequentrecoveryNoticedated2llllt2o2lissuedbythe respondent^{no.3 pending disposal of the above writ petitic)n}

¶19

IA NO:^{1 0F 2022}

¶20

Between

¶21

Southern^{Power Diskibution Companyof TG Ltd , Compound, Hyderabad'} Reo bv its Chairman^{and Manaqing Dlrector'}

¶22

, i'i'5 slii"*iJnJ"nt Enqin""r,bo"rtn"rn^{Power Distribution Companyof TG}

¶23

Ltd. OD6ration Circle, Medak at Sanga Reddy'

¶24

3 ii;; X!;i.i;;i Dirti"n;i6sineer'^{Southern'Power Distributioncompanvof} TG Ltd, Operation,^{Gummadidala'tVledak} ...pETtTtONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶25

AND

¶26

Rocksand Mineral^{Private Limited. RegisteredunderCompanie-s- Act l956'} ii;;i;;;t ieoisiereo office at 203,^{VjavaEncla/e, PIot No 32,-Srinagar} i"oiiV ivo.#oit^{ne oy its Manager, HH and ADI/ MrK VenkataRao'}

¶27

...RESiPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶28

PetitionUndersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthe:circumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Crourtmaybe pleasedto} vacate the^{interim orders daled. Ol-12-2O21 in lA No 01 of 202l in W P No'} 31567 of^{2021and dismiss the writ petition}

¶29

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: SRl. KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY}

¶30

Counsel forthe^{Respondents:SRIR. VINOD REDDY(SC FOR TSTRANSCO)}

¶31

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶32

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶33

W.P. No.31 70F o21

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSpDCL, appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶36

2 The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as u nder:

¶37

"...to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in disconnecting the power supply to the petitioner service connection vide bearing No.SGR 943 CAT-HT.IA, by issuing a HT Assessment Calculation vide Case No.SGRD/PTCR/GMDD/HT2726/2t, dated II.71.2021, without their being any mention of service disconnection, which is prima l"acie barred by limitation and subsequent recovery Notice dated 27.11.202I issued by the respondent No.3, without following the prescribed procedure contemplated under law as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of Section 56(2) of The Electricity, Act 2003 and consequenfly direct the respondents to restore the power supply to the petitioner service connection vide bearing No.SGR 943 CAT_HT.IA, forthwith by setting aside the HT Assessment Calculation vide Case No.SGRD/PrCR/GMDD/HT2726/21, dated 11.11.2021 and

¶38

j,x

¶39

¶40

subsequent recovery Notice dated²¹ .11.2021 issued by the respondent No.3 and to^pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may dei:ms fit^just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶41

Thas Court vide its order dated OL.L2.2O2L in I.A.No.1 of 2 21 in W.P.No.3t567 ot 2O2n^passed orders in favour of the^petitioner observinq as under:-

¶42

"Heard learned Senior Counsel altpearing for Sri K. Ravinder Reddy, learned Coursel for the petitioner and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and^perused the record.

¶43

Petitioner contends that the respondents have raised a demand towards electricity cherrges on the ground of short billing for the periods 16.08.2014 to 2t.09.2027; that Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for any demand to be raised only within a period of two years and thus the demand raised for the period August, 2014 till O,:tcber, 2019 is clearly barred; that even the reason stated for raising the demand on account of short billing is not within the hands of the petitioner, sirLce the load factor to be applied is purely an ar:tion of the respondents and the petitioner has no say: and that

¶44

¶45

for the fault of the respondents in discharging their duties, the petitioner cannot be penalized.

¶46

I find force in the above contention particularly having regard to the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶47

In view of the above, there shall be stay of demand as per the impugned proceeding dated 27.1,1.2021, subject to condition of petitioner making payment of Rs.25,00,000/- in two installments i.e. 1.t installment payable on or before 15th of December and 2nd installment payable on or before 5th of lanuary, 2022. In the mean time, the respondents shall restore the electricity connection which is stated to be disconnected. In the event oF failure of petitioner to make any of the above said payments within the time specified, the respondents are free to resort to disconnection.,,

¶48

4, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSpDCL, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 01.12.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 202r, the respondents had restored the erectricity connection and the petitioner also made payment of

¶49

<br>

¶50

¶51

Rs.25,00,000/- as directed by this Court vrde its order dated 01.t2.202t.

¶52

Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel for ISSPDCL, appearing on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the averments made at paragrzrph No.14 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the responcents submits that since the petitioner is disputing the bills and the demand of amount therein, the petitioner may be directed to avail the alternative remedy of filing complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum

¶53

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and^put-forth all the legal pleas as are available to the petitioner in support of the petitioner's case against the HT Assessmenl: Calculation vide CASE No.SGRD/PTCR/GMDD/HT2726/27, Dateii 11.11.2027 and subsequent recovery notice dated 27.tL.2021 issued by respondent No.3 including the^plea of limitatic,n available to the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶54

:.i

¶55

)

¶56

petitioner further places reliance on the Judq ment of Full B nch fB m Hi, h u re tn o7 sc Online B 48 in Mah ra t, Sta E ectr. cit DI comDanv Limited, Sindhuduro Kudal vs. citv ombu man, Mumbaia nda not,her rn support of the petitioner's case on the point that no sum due under Section 56 of Electricity Act shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied, which according to the petitioner admittedly had not taken ptace in the present case.

¶57

\ I

¶58

Taking into consideration the submissions put_forth by both the learned counset on record, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Competent Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (ccGRF) within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the petitioner is given the liberty to put-forth all the legal pteas as are avaitable to the petitioner in addition to atl the pleas put_forth in

¶59

¶60

-!Er!-
X.+i :

¶61

the present Writ Petition in support of the^petitioner's case including the plea of limitation and the competent authority shall consider the same in accordance to law in conformity with the principles of natural^justice by^giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the^petitioner within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. Till the appropriate orders are^passed by the Competent Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum^(CCGRF), the respondents shall not initiate any coercive steps against the petitioner. In the event, the^petitioner does^not approach the cornpetent authority within the time stipulated by this Court in the^present order, it is open to the respondent to^proceed against the^{petitioner in} accordance to law for recovery of the afilounts^{due from} the petitioner. However, there shall be^no order^{as to} costs.