Zakir Hussain v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited and 3 Others
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-06. Zakir Hussain v. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited and 3 Others. Read...
Judgment text
132521 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1169 OF 2023 Between: Zakir Hussain, S/o Yousuf Hussain, aged about 6't years, Occ; Business, Rl/o H. No. 19-2-628, Dood Bowli, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyuth soudha Hyderabad. 2. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation), Mir Alam, TSSPDCL, Hyderabad. 3. The Assistant Engineer, TSSPCL, Chandulal Baradari Section, Hyderabad 4. The Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO, TSSPDCL, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. .....
RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No. 'l herein in issuing orders permitting the petitioner to pay the balance 50 Percent amount i. e. , Rs. 1,66,771. 50 Ps. , in respect of the Service Connection No. M3009580 pursuant to the representation dt. 2711212022, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent No. 1 to issue orders permitting the petitioner to pay the above said amount and to close the case. ! I. A. NO:1 OF 2023 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 direct the respondent No.
1 herein to consider and pass orders on the representation dt. 2711212022, pending disposal of the main writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M. NAYEEMUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents : SRI R. VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TSTRANSCO) The Court made the following ORDER q HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITTON No. 1169 ot 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri Mohd. Nayeemuddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R. Vanod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: "... to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No. 1 herein in issuing orders permitting the petitioner to pay the balance 50olo dmount i. e. Rs. 1,66,771. 50 Ps. , in respect of the Service Connection No.
M3009580 pursuant to the representation dated 27/12/2022 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent No. 1 to issue orders permitting the petitioner to pay the above said amount and to close the case and to grant... ". 3. The case of the'petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is running a function hall in the name and style of Milan Function Hall. On tt. tO. 2OL2 the respondent authorities inspected the \ I \\ ::r-).. r*---- SN, J wr I 169 2023 premises and alleged that the petitioner had tampered the meter and issued notice dated 0g. 01. 2013 to pay a sum of Rs. 3,33,543/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 3320 of 2013 before this Court wherein the Court vide order dated 05. 02. 2oI3 directed the respondents to restore the power supply on payment of Rs. L,66,771. 50 ps, incidental charges of Rs. 100/- and re-connection charges of Rs.
75l_ and stayed the collected of balance 50olo amount subject to final determination of liability under Section 154 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the amount ofr Rs. 1,66,771. 50 ps. along with the incidental and reconnection charges and got restored the power supply. 4. The petitioner further submits that the respondent authorities are issuing the monthly bills showing the balance of 50o/o amount along with interest amount, contrary to the observations in W. p. No. 3320 of 2013. The petitioner made representations ciated 22. O3. 2073 and 11. 09. 2017 to the respondent authorities not to levy the interest on the balance amount till final determination of liability. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing W. p. No. UTBZ of ZO22 wherein this Court on 23. 1t. 2022 directed the respondent n J SN, J wP 1169 2021 authorities not to levy the interest on the balance 50olo of the amount i. e. Rs. 1,66,771.
50 subject to final determination of liability under Section 154 of Indian Electricity Act. Despite the said order, the respondent authorities continued to issue bills by levying interest on the balance 50o/o of the amount i. e. Rs. L,66,777. 50 p. s. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27. 12. 2022 before the 1't respondent but the respondent authorities failed to consider the same. Hence the writ petition. PERU ED THE RECORD 5. It is e sDecific case of the oetitioner t hat the oner h on occa filino W. P. No. 332 O of 2013 and in the said writ r nterim tn v I h n o 2 The t o n h ord r o5. 2. 2 s P N 332O of 2O13 is extracted hereunder: perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that it is a provisional assessment notice I after making inspection.
With regard to allegations I I ,l SN, J WPI t69 2023 made against the petitioner, it is a matter for inquiry by the competent authority and when the final assessment is not made, it is not necessary for this Court to look into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, at this point of time, In any event, as the petitioner is disputing the allegations made against him, and having regard to the nature of allegations, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to restore power supply to the petitioner on payment of Rs. 1,66,771. 50 PS. , incidental charges of Rs. 100/- and re-connection charges of R. s. 75l-. However, there shall be stay of collection of' balance 50o/o tsmount. The aforesaid payment to be made by the petitioner shall be subject to final determination of liability under Section 154 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
It is also made clear that in addition to payment of the aforesaid charges, the petitioner shall continue to pay the consumption and demand charges regularly as and when the bills are issued". 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in compliance to the directions of this Court dated 05. 02. 2013 passed in W. P. No. 3320 of 2013 the petitioner had deposited 50% of the assessed amount as per the assessment notice dated 08. 01. 2013 issued vide Proceedings No. DpElHyS/SDOL/5t76/t3. However respondent authorities continued to issue the bills petitioner by levying the interest on the balance 50o/o amount and the same is in violation of the order of this dated 05. 02. 2013 passed in W. p. No. 332O of 2013. further case of the petitioner that vide detailed representation dated 27. 72.
2022 the petitioner brought to the notice 1't respondent herein that as per the directions of this there shall be stay of collection of balance 50o/o amount the payment shall be subject to final determination under Section 154 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, collection of balance 507o amount as stated above, does arise and the same is contrary to the orders of this dated 05. 02. 2013 passed in W. p. No. 3320 of 2013. of the representation of the petitioner dated 27. t2. 2022 respondents are troubling the petitioner and in spite of copy being communicated to the respondents petitioner, yet the respondents continued to issue the levying the interest on the balance 5Oo/o amount Rs. 1,66,771. 50 ps in violation of the orders of this dated 05. 02. 2013 passed in W. P. No. 3320 of 2Ot3. SN,. I wP r 169 2023 7. Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, appearing on behalF of respondent Nos.
1 to 4 submits that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the 1't respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth by' the petitioner vide representation dated 27. 12. 2022 of the petitioner in accordance to law. 8. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondents, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1't respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 27. L2. 2O22 submitted to the 1't respondent in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner on the representation dated 27. L2. 2O22 of the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
ry SN, J WP lt69 2023 sta nd The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall closed. R SD/. P. GOWRI SHAN ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER to and M ,. ,n" chairman i"'jfif ii. r311"fl? ,}. B[i{:l'";":** ,? il'JtririlFrJres#"id'ff 3 Til:n3*it'"'Engneer'$! $ht$i:lrJ*Hffif;[::*:*:':1*' 4 5 6,H:tsd:hix"uffi+ 7. Two CD CoPies SA BS ) HIGH COURT DATED:0611212024 't-, (:;a ,4' \ \ (\ C/ () r'P 24 EEi M * t) i\, '+rcl4Eq * ORDER WP. No. 1169 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE W. P WTHOUT COSTS. \
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.