Disposed

Aishwarya Poultry Farm v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.

Telangana HC12 Dec 2024WP/43042/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Poultry farm challenged an added electricity bill amount as violating an interim order and issued without notice or hearing on its objections. Respondents undertook to refer the alleged energy-pilferage case to the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and recover only after proceedings conclude. The court closed the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to refer the pilferage case to the Special Court under Section 154(5) and proceed against the petitioner only after those proceedings conclude; writ petition and pending miscellaneous peti

Aishwarya Poultry Farm Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. — Telangana HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SI'REPALLI NANDA

¶6

wRlT PETITION NO: 43042 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Aishwarya Poultry Farm, Rep. By its Pro. Rajanaku Swapna Wo. Praveen Kumar, Age 35 years, Occ Eusiness R/o. Chittojipally Village, Chegunta Mandal' Medak Dlstrict

¶9

...pETraoNER

¶10

AND

¶11

Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd,^(Formerly Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.), Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office # 6-1-50, Mint Compound, HYDERABAD-S0O 063, Telangana

¶12

The Divisional Engineer, AsseSsments, T.S.S.P.D.C.L., Gajwel,^Medak District.

¶13

The Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, T.S.S.P.D.C.L., Gajwel, Medak^District 4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, T.S.SP.D.C.L.^Chegunta, Medak District.

¶14

The Additional Assistant Engineer^{(Operations),} T.S.S.P.D.C.L.,^Chegunta, Medak District

¶15

...RESP.NDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of India^praying that^{in the} circutmstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmaybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of 3rd^{respondentin issuingthe} monthly bill for petitioners Service No.A280 00238, Cehgunta,^{Gajwel, Medak Dist-} adding Rs.2,33,776l- with the^{present bill amount of Rs.18,163/- is against the} spirit of interim order^passed in W.P.M.P.No.893^{of 2013 in W'P.No.749 of 2013'} dated 09-1^'l-2013, without there being^{any notice or withoutthere beingan} opportunity of being heard, or any order^{passed on petitionersobrections'dated} 20-12-2012, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional^{and consequently direct the} Respondents to continue^power supply to the^{service connection bearingno. SC} No.A280 00238/Cat-LT(B) Non-Domestic/Comrnercial,^{Chegunta distribution,} Gajwel, Medak Dist., without insisting^{upon payment of any amount.}

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015 MP. NO: 55494 oF 201s)

¶18

Petition under section 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the objections of the petitioner and pass appropriate final assessment orrters on her objections dated 20-12-2012 and continue power supply to petitioner's service connection bearing number sc.No. A2g0 oo2SglcalLT(B) Non Domestic/commerciar, chegunta distribution, Gajwer, Medak Dist., without insisting upon payment of any arrear amount pursuant to provisionar assessment notice vide ADE/op/RMpr/D.No.1507t12, Dared:17-12-20.12, issued by the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.VINOD REDOY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO.43O42 Of 2015

¶23

ORD ER:

¶24

Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned^counsel appearing on behalf of the^{petitioner and Sra R. Vinod} Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for^TGSPDCL appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶25

The petitioner approached the^{Court seeking} prayer as under:

¶26

"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature^{of writ of} mandamus declaring the action of^{3'd respondentin} issuing the monthly bill for^{petitioner'sService No.A280} OO238, Chegunta, Gajwel, Medak^{Dist. adding} Rs.2,33,776/- with the^preseflt bill^{amount of} Rs. 18,163/- is against the spirit of^{interim order passed} in W.P.M.P.No.893 of 2013 in^{W.P.No.749 of 2Ol3'} dated 09.01.2013, without^{there being any notice or} without there being an opportunity^{of being heard,or} any order^passed on^{petitioner's objections, dated} 20.12.2012 as illegal, arbitrary^{andu nconstitutionaI} and consequently direct the^{Respondentsto continue} power supply to the service connection bearing^No.SC No.A28O 00238/Cat-LT(B)^{Non-Domestic/Commercial,} Chegunta distribution, Gajwel,^{Medak Dist. without} insisting upon^payment of^{any amountand pass such} other order or orders^{as the Hon'ble Court may deem} fit and^proper in the^{circumstancesof the case".}

wP 43042 2015

Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCI- appearing on behalf of the respondents, brings on record the order of this Court dated 24.O2.2020 passed in W.P.No.749 of 2013 and contends that by virtue of the order daled 24.011.2020 passed in W.P.No.749 of 2013, no further orders are necessary.

¶31

4- The releva nt Dorti n of the order dated 24.O2.2020 ssed in W.P.No.749 ol 2Ol3 is extracted

¶32

heteunder:

¶33

''When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents informs the Court that this is a case of pilferage of energy, and this Court granted interim order on 09.01.2013, directing the respondents to restore the power supply subject to the petitioner depositing with them 50o/o of the demanded amount. He further contends that a Special Court is constituted to try the cases of pilferage under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act') and respondents would refer the present case to the Special Court so as to enable the Special Court to assess the pilferage of energy under Section 154(5) of the Act provided that petitioner deposits 5Oo/o of the amount as per the interim order passed by this Co u rt.

¶34

¶35

s(, wP 43042 2015

¶36

In view of the aforesaid submission, this Court is of the considered view that this writ^petition can^be disposed of directing the respondents to refer the case of the petitioner to Special Court for^passing orders in accordance with law under Section^{154 (5)} of the Act within a reasonable^{period, preferably} within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date^of receipt of a copy of this order."

¶37

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^respondents submits that the respondents would^{proceedagainstthe} petitioner for any recovery only after conclusion of the proceedings before the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶38