Dismissed

Syed Hameeduddin v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

Telangana HC3 Feb 2025WP/15125/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge adjudicated a writ petition challenging the illegal disconnection of electricity meters due to pending civil disputes. The Court held that civil disputes cannot be a ground for denying power supply per the Electricity Act. It dismissed the writ petition with a direction for the authority to consider the petitioner's grievance and grant a hearing within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of Writ Petition WP No. 15125 of 2024; directed Respondent No. 3 to consider petitioner's grievance and summon both parties for a personal hearing within two weeks.

Syed Hameeduddin Vs Telangana State Southern Power… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

l32s2l

\ t1 I {

I I t i tl

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

MONDAY, THE^{THIRDDAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYFIVE}

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶9

WRIT PETITI^{ON NO:151 250F2024}

¶10

Between:

¶11

sved Hameeduddin,^{S/o Late SyedVazeeruddinaged about 41 years'occ} Ei,;I";;,' ;;-H].r".'^{iale_itgl lt2o t c, Akber Nagar-Kumarwadicolony, Edi} Bazar, Hyderabad. ...'ETIT'ONER

¶12

...'ETIT'ONER

¶13

AND

¶14

Telangana^{state southern Power Distrib^utioncompanyLimited, rep by its} Ctriirfian and^{[/anaginq Director, MintCompounrlHvderaoao'}

¶15

,. ih;'5 ffi ;i ;i; ilⁱ dE;'s"i^{#Li is*si' oC t' i ope ri-tio n I so uth' Hvde rabad} 5 ri-," oi'is""rr^{rngin";i iSSPDCL,operatibn, Citv Vlll' Asmangadh'} Hvderabad.

¶16

¶17

a i,rri. s,tro irbeebuddin,^{S/o. LateSyed Vazeeruddin, aged 57 years. occ.} - H[ri"'""."r,'ffi;lir.r.ril'i'e-B-6e-s71-t2o'tc, Akbar nagar, Kuhmarwadi, Edi Bazar' Hvderabad. No. 4 is impleaded^{as per C'o dt' 06 08'2024 in lA No'212024')}

¶18

id$d;#*

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under^{Article226 ot lhe Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiledtherewith' the High Court may be} pleased to issue an^{appropriateWrit, Orderor Direction' more particularly onein} the nature of^{Writ of Mandamus,declaring the inaction of the respondent} authorities in^{taking stepsto re-fix/restorethe electricitymeters bearingS C'No'} 69462 and^{69546 to the petitioners premisesbearing H No' '18-8-50911lzolc} situated at^{Akber Nagar, Kumarwadicolony,Edi Bazar, Hyderabad, which were} taken away on^{1Bl4t2O24without any reasons' followedby personal visits' as} beingillegal,arbitrary,unjust,unconstitutionalandcolourableexerciseofpowers andconsequentlydirecttherespondentauthoritiestore-fixtheelectricitymetres to the above^{mentioned premisesby restoringthe power supply'}

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the.affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to re-fix the electricity meters bearin,3 s.c.No. 69462 and 69546 to the premises bearing H.No. 18-8-50gl1l2otc situated at Akber Nagar, Kumarwadi Colony, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad by restoring the power supply, pending disposal of the main Writ petition, in the interest.of justicer.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MR MOHD ABDUL HAt Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDy, SC FOR TELANGANA TRANSCO Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI MOHAMMED ABDUL QUADEER

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

HON'BLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA} RIT E o No 1 oF 20 4

¶27

ORD^E

¶28

Heard Sri^{Mohd. Abdul Hai' learned counsel} appearing on^{behalf ofthe petitioner' Sri N' Sreedhar} Reddy, learned^{StandingCounselforTS Transco} appearing^{on behalf of respondent Nos'1 to 3 and Sri} Mohammed^Abdul Quadeer,^{learned counsel appearing} on behalf of^{the resPondent No'4'}

¶29

The^{petitioner approachedthe Court seeking} prayer as under:

¶30

"... to issue an^aPProPriate Writ order^{or direction} the nature^{of Writ of} more Particula^{rlY one in} Mandamus^{declaring the inactionof the respondent} authorities^{in takingsteps torefix/restorethe} electricity^{meters bearing S'C' No'69462 and 69546} to the^{petitioner'spremisesbearingH' No' 18-B-} 5Og/l/2O/C^{situatedat Akber Nagar'Kumarwadi} Colony,^{Edi Bazar,Hyderabadwhich were taken} away on^{i-.B/4/2024without any reasons followed by} personal visits^{as beingillegal' arbitrary'unjust} u nconstitutiona^{I and colourable exerciseof powers} and consequently^{direct the respondentauthorities} to refix the^{electricity meters to the above}

¶31

¶32

w) 15125 2024

¶33

mentioned premises by restoring the power s;upply and to grant such other relief or reliefs a:; this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circu msta nces of the case...".

¶34

It is the specific case of the petitioner that house bearing rnunicipal Door No. lB-B-589/t/20/C, EtTi Bazar, Kumarwadi Colony, Hyderabad belongs to petitioner's grandmother i.e. Smt. Late Rabia bee and the petitioner had been lawful owner of the said house along with p€rtitioner,s grandmother and had been enjoying the L.lectricity consumption by paying the electricity bills to the company regularly. Though the petitioner had been prompt and regular in payment of electricity charges to the respondent authorities;, the electricity service connection to the meter No. 69462, 69546 had been disconnected unlawfully on L8.04.2024 and the officials respondents had taken away the petitioner's electricity meters in illegal manner. Since then there was no electricity in the subject premises of the petitioner. The petitioner made a request rzrde repre:;entation dated 27.05.2024 for restoration of the electricity meter No.69462, 69546 in respect of the premises No.1B_g_

wP 15125²⁰²⁴

5[gl1,l2O/C,^{situatedat Akber nagar' Kumarwadi Colony'Edi} Bazar,^{Hyderabad, which had beenacknowledgedby the} office of^{the ManagingDirector,TGSPDCL'CorporateOffice'} on 27.05.2024.^{However, no} Mint ComPound,^HYderabad action had^{beeninitiatedin responseto petitioner's request} forrestorationoftheSUbjectelectricityservicemeters Aggrieved^{by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ} petition

¶39

Counter^{affidavit has been filed by respondentNos'1 to} 3 and the^{learned StandingCounselappearingon behalf of} respondent^{Nos.1 to 3 placing reliance on the averments} made^{in the counter affidavitfiled by the respondent Nos'1 to} 3 in^{particular para Nos'2 to 5 contends that the electricity} meters^{bearingS.C' No' 69462and 69546 had been removed} and that^{civil disputesare pending between the petitionerand} the respondents^{and the disputes need to be adjudicatedby} the comPetent^{civil Court'}

¶40

Learned^{counsel appearing on behalf ofunofficial} 5, respondent^{No.4 placing reliance on the avermentsmade in} the counter^{affidavit filed by the 4th respondent submits that}

¶41

¶42

\P 15t2s 2024

¶43

the petit oner has no right or claim over the subject property and the electricity service connections sought for is only to create o\r/nership over the subject premises and that. there are civil disputes pending between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and the petitioner had wrongly misrepresented the facts and therefore, the petitioner is not entifled For any relief as sought for in the present writ peiltion.

¶44

PER ED HE EC D

¶45

Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2OO3 reads as u nder:

¶46

"Serction 43. (Duty to supply on request)

¶47

(1)(Save as otherw rse provided in th is Act, every distr ibution ) licensee, hall on a on f

¶48

Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of ne.w sub-stations, the distributi"., ii""".ee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extensibn or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commissioni Provided further_ that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provisi,on i* ,"ppfy ot electricity exists, the Approp.iate iom-rnission

wP 15125²⁰²⁴

l I I

as it^{may consider} mav extend the^said Period of such^{village or} n"cL.s".Y for^{electrification} hamlet or^area.

¶53

The^{APex in} the Judgment^{reportedin2(J23} in between^{K.C.Ninan Vs' Kerala} LiveLaw^{(SC) 453} stateofElectricityBoardandotherspassedinCivil Appeal^{Nos.21O9 and 2110 ol 2OO4'dated 19'O5'2023'} observed^{as under:}

¶54

"El A 2 3 ao 4 The dutY^to supply electricitY^{underSection 43 is with resPect to} the owner^{or occupier of thePremises.The 2003 Act} contemp^{lates a synergy between} 43, when^{the consumer electricitYand} ts premises. Under^Section supplied, the^{owner oroccuPierbecomes a} consumer onlY^{with resPectto those Particular} s sought^and Provided premises for^{which electricity} by the^{Electric Utilities}

¶55

8 The Apex^{Court in its Judgment reported in (2O11)} 12 Supreme^{Court Cases 314 inbetween Chandu} Khamaru^{Vs. NayanMalik and Others passed in Civil} Appeal^{No.7575of 2011 datedO2'O9'2O11observedas}

¶56

under:

¶57

Sub-section^{(1) of Section42 and sub-section (1) of Section} i:""ir#E"i*citv^{nct, 2003 are quoted herein below:}

¶58

"42. Duties^{of distributionlicensees and open access-(1)It} shall be^{the duty of a Jistribution licensee to developand} maintain^{aneficientco-ordinate andeconomical}

sN,J wP t5125 2024

distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in thir; Act. " "4Ii.^puty to supply on request-(1) Save as otherwise prc,vided in this Act, every distribution Iicensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any prernises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply.,,

¶63

It will be clear from sub-section (1) of Section 42 that every distribution licensee has a duty to develop and maintain an efficient co-ordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act. Sub-section (1) ,cf Section 43 p-rovides that every distribution licensee, ihull, on un applic,ation by the owner or occupier of any premrses, give supply, of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply,. These ton r A oo ak it m ar a stri lon n as tu u lc o ow r duf Dremises Iocated in the area of suool vofel trici of uti if h er r is r n r ndi wn r r an MI ha ta r a n tai h rt rom e^t distribution licen 12, The case of the appellant, on the other hanrl, is that this passage is not a private passa ge of respondent Nos.1 to 3 but rs : common passage and the refore an electric lirre can be drawn through this common passage. This dispute will have to be resolved in Civil Suit No.83 of 2004 pendi ng in the Court of ll rD tsr H ah tn s u di on thi s b en DA ies. the a Della tca not ede ied u oolv of electricitv to his house. 11: y'Ve, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned order of the Division Bench and dispos€, of the Writ petition of respondent nos.1 to 3 with the direction that the distribution licensee will find oui wnether there is any other way in which electric tine can be- drawn for supply of electricity to the house of the appellant, other than

wP 15125²⁰²⁴

(-,

the disputed^{passagein DagNos'406,4O7and 409' Ifthere is} "" "tfi*^{way to- supply electricity to the. house of the} upp"fiuni, the distribution^{licenseewill follow the provisionsof} tr6-.".tion^{(2) of Section 67 of the Electricity Act'2003for} ."..V-i"g "rt il-,"^{work for supply of electricity to the house of} the appellant.

¶68

The Apex Court^{in the Judgment reportedin 2()22} Livelaw 57O in^{betweenDilip (dead)through LRs Vs'} Satish and^{others passed inCRLA No'81O ol2(J22} (arising out of Specia!^{Leave petition(CRL)No'8917of} 2O19, dated^{L3,O5-2O22observed as under:}

¶69

\t is not disPuted^{that aPPlicant No.1 has obtained} the connection^{of electricitY'The submissionsmade} show that^{aPPlicant No. 1 isinpossession of the shoP} and he is^{runninga saloon shoPIt is clear that he} needs electricity^{for doing this business'but.thefirst} informant was^{not giving no objectioncertificate.He} took every^{step to see that aPplicantNo' 1does not get} supPlY of^{electricitYfor his business. It is not the case of} the APP licant^{No. 1 that as Perthe agreement between} him and^{landlord, the landlordis bound to suPPlYthe} electricitY. Fu her the Ele ncl tV B ard see SN obiect^ion of^I a^{ndlordonlv toverifvthat theDOSSCSSIon} of the nant is a uthorised There is^{no other} urpose hin obt in ln suchnoob ctio from lan lo Th la lord ca n not revent th ten ntf m ili S h facilitv at^hisowncost

¶70

oos tion ofl^wtat Iti sn ww^{ell settledo} el itv isa basi am enl of which^aDerson cannot be eortved.^Ele un rtcloffailuca notlr bedusa^eclin of the^ed to ate ant^onteq ificate.^{AII that} la dlordto^{issuenoobictionce} lcl s a ho r ul xa ne et r h nt fo rt n ts n c no h m

\tt P 15125 2024

g.u-estr0!!-1 Be that as it may, the High Court clearl y fell in t:rror in quashing the FIR. It cannot be said that fa brication and/or creation of records and/or forging a signature does not constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The High Court completely ove.looked the definition of ch eating in Section 4L5 of the IPC. It is ho r ma.l ecl r thatel rICI SUD lv n all n di ti d U m NC e th te n ti n e de m U m C r sa me. "

¶75

¶76

This Court opines that the grievance of the petitioner as put forth in the representation dated 27.O5.2O24 addressed to the Chairman, Managing Director, TGSPDCL, Hyderabad needs to be considered in accordance to law, since pendency of civil disputes cannot be a ground for denia! oi electricity service power supply as per Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2OO3 and atso as per the view laid down by the Apex Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted above. The Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put forth by the petitioner in the representation dated 27.O5.2O24 addressed to the Chairman, Managing Director, TGSPDCL, Hyderabad by

¶77

¶78

wP rs125 2o);

¶79

giving an opportunity of^{personal hearing to both the} petitioner and the 4th respondent^{duly considering the} view of the Apex Court^{in similarsituataons as indicated} in^judgments of the^{Apex Court (referred toand} extracted above) and^{pass appropriate orders in} accordance to law, in^{conformitywith principles of} naturat^justice, within a^{period of two (2) weeksfrom} the date of receipt of^{a copy of this order. However,} there shall be no order^{as to costs.}

¶80

Miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pending in this Writ}

¶81

Petition, shall stand^closed.

¶82

SD/- P.C h. NAGABHUSHAMBA AS ISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// ECTION OFFICER

¶83

to ., I,,,, chairman and rr/rfl,?.1',:g:^[:.?S:J;f,]r.1iir:5,E:!-::': t'.-"1 Distribution^ComPanl

¶84

1. rhe^{su peri ntenoi n g i ;iii ni"ei'isijFb-ci-:aopeiatibn t So uth' Hvderabad} 3. The Divisionur^{eng'n""i' i"stpddl'*o#ti't6n'citv VlI l' Asmansadh'} Hvderabad.

¶85