The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. 2

4. t The Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Of Telangana State, [/int Compound Hyderabad, Rep., by its Chairman and Managing Director. The Chief General Manager, TSSPDCL, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. The Superintending Engineer (Operation Circle), TSSPDCL, R.R. East Circle, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation Circle), TSSPDCL, lDA, Nacharam, R.R. District. The Senior Accounts Officer, TSSPDCL, lDA, Nacharam, R.R. District. T...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 a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, diction, order or orders declaring the action of the respondents in assessing the connected load and deciding it as excess of the sanctioned load and holding that the petitioner committed malpractice and levying penalty on the petitioner by the provisional assessment order No- ADEJOP/Uppal/F.D.No-775/92, dated 5-6-92, final assessment order No-SEA/HYD/F.NO-SBD368/SAH.N0-9672, dated 17-04-2004 of the Superintendent Engineer and the order of the CGM in appeal in Proceedings NO-CGM/OP/DE (C&M) F.251 (vi) 2900, dated 4-11-2004 as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and void ----------'-- / l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015 (WPMP. NO:520 33 0F 201s) Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High co rrt may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the proceedings No: cGM/oP/DE(o&lvyF.251 (vi)2900, dated 4-1 1-2004 ot the chief Generar Manager, the 2nd respondent l.A. NO: 1 OF 2O1 6(VVVM P. NO: 209I OF 2016) Between 1 2 e 4 q The Southern Power Distribution C-ompany Ltd., Of -telangana -' State, tMint ' 9.orpgrl9 Hyderabad, Rep., by its-Chairmdn and'Managingbirectoi. The Chief General Manageri TSSPDCL, Singaren! -Bh"avan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. T.he Superintelding Engineer (Operation Circle), TSSp)CL, R.R. East Circle, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation Circ e), TSSpDCL, lDA, Nacharam, R.R. District. The Senior Accounts Officer, TSSPDCL, lDA, Nacharanr, R.R District AND ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDE NTS M/s. Maniklal Textiles, a proprietary Concern,Regd., O.fice at D.No 2_i-113, ]gba.c-co ,Bg4a1, Secunderabad., rep , by its pro"prieto Sri Copat Agarwal, S/o. Manik lal Aganrual, aged about 46 years ...RESPON DENT/SPETITIONER Petition under Section 15'1 cpc praying that in the c ir6umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased lo vacate the inlerim orders dated: 'l 1-12-201s in wpMp Nc . 52033 of 2015 in W.P.No. 40309 of 2015 and dismiss the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH. SAWASADHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSpDCL The Court made the following: ORDER -7// // THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETI TION No.4O 3O9 of 2O15 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N' Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing for respondents.

2. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief "...ro issue a uit in tlLe nature of aWnt of MandamtLs or QnA other unt diction ord.er or orders dectaing ttrc ctcton of the respondents in o"t"tt*g tLE connected load and'-deciding il as excess of the sanction'ed tiii ,ni rutat"g that the petitioner committed ma.lpractice and leuging ';;;";; r; thZ petittoner bg the p-rou-isionnl- assessment order 't'tr.ii'et opt uppati r.o.nozzs/ s2 dated 5-9 1992' rtnal assessment orier NO.SEAT HYD/F.NO:SBD/ 368/ SAH'No:9672' dated 17 4 2004 of ihe Superintendent Engineer and the order of the CGIII in appeal in i)r.i.iitnst No.cGM/ob/ DE'(c&M) F'251- (ui) 2900' doted 4 11 2004 as 'orit rrV,"itt"got, withoui juri'sdiction and- uotd anl.no,lt such other and furlher orders as this Hon'ble Courl tnag b" ae"tn Itt ' I

3.BrieffactsoftheCaSearethatthepetitiondrwasthe consumer of erstwhile APSEB with a contracted maximum demand of 74 HP (55.204 KW) under Category-lll with Service No:1250' Petitioner is the textile weaving mill and has loom machines and power loom motors, and the total connected load of the said machineryis4lHP.TheAssistantDivisionalEngineer/DPE2/Hyd inspected the consumer premises on 20-9-1993 and found that the .oriJ,"O load was ll4-25 H.P. as against the sanctioned load of 2 74 H.P. which amounts to malpractice, anrl a provisional Assessment Order was communicated to the Board, assessing the loss at Rs.2,37,121 .3O/- and also issued cause notice datcd 19_10- 1994. Pursuant to issuance of said notice, petitjoner filed representation before the Superintendent Enginer:r, Asscssments and by order dated t2.4.2OA4, the liability is fixed ar Rs.2,33,030/-. As against the s.rid order the petitioner filed appeal belore the Chief Gcncral Managcr and proct.edings No: CGM/OP/DEIOPrM/21r(vtl/2sOO, dated 4.rr.2o:)4, the Chief General Manager has revised the demand to Rs. I ,4g,54 9/_. The order of Chief Gencral Manager is challenged in OS.No.7g5 of 2OO4 on Lhe file of XII Additional Senior Civil Judge, (nTC) City Civil Courts, Secundcrabad, and the Trial Court br order dated 31.3.2010 dismissed the suit holding that whetht:r the plaintiff (petitioner) committed pilferage or malpractice is a c ulstion of lact which is to be determined by the Electricity Depar:rnent and the said fact cannot be determined by the Civil, Court. Aggrieved against the said judgment the petitioner hled appe4l in A.S.No.107 of 2010 on the file of XXVII Additional Chief Judge, C ty,Civil Court, Secunderabad, and the said appeal was dismissed by judgmcnt dated 1.5.2005. Aggrieved b5, the same, the petitioner filed this writ petit ion. , I I i 3

4. The respondents have filed vacate stay petition shting that as per Condition No.39.1.2(a) of revised terms and conditions of supply, exceeding the contracted loan without specific permission of the board in respect of LT services other than the categories-I and II i.e., domestic, non_clomestic and commercial. It is further stated that as per the inspection report it is clear that the petitioner,s premises were found with the excess connected load by exceeding the contracted load and the same was recordecl by the inspection team and the particulars of the connected load was listed and served on the pedtioner,s representadve present at the time of inspection duly obtaining signature. It is lurther stated lhat Condition No. 39.10.4 of terms and conditions of .supply says the appeliate authority may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, and in the present case the appellate aufrority has exercised its powers under Condition No.39.10.4 and revised the assessment restricting the same to one year period only i.e., from September 1992 to September 1993 and reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,4g,549/_. It is further submitted that the provisional assessment has been reduced by th. third respondent duly considering the number of motors supplied with electricity at the time of inspection and further the appellate authority i.e., second respondent has reducerl the final assessment by restricting the oT:o a one year. In totat the second and third .rrrr o respondents have \. 4 drastically rcduced the provisional assessment amount to Rs.1,48,549/ as against Rs.2,37,121.3C/-. lt is stated that the respondents have charged the energg consumed lry the petitioner and not charged anything extra therefore the petit oner is liable to pay the same with interest as per rules, and th: petitioner has regularly indulged in malpractice by exceeding the connected load and the same is evident from the DPE inspectiorrs at regular intervals.

5. Learncd counsel for the petitioner submits that the petiLioner willing pay Rs.1,25,0OO/ including the amount n'hich has already been paid in termr; of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.MP.No.520iri3 of 2015 in W.P.No.4O3Oq oi 2015 ,.lated i 1.12.2O15.

6. Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned, Standing r Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing for respondents vehementl ., opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Recording the said submissions, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- including the amount which has already been paicl in terms of thc interim order passed by this Court in W.P.NiP.No.52033 of 2O15 irL W.P.No.403O9 of 2015 dated 11.12.2015. No order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/.M. OSMAN ALI BAIG eSstsrerur REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY/, bry--.^- SECTIdN OFFICER li*"1{ j,"stss[qH,3sl$fl+'$sFEs*f, ',x",:*Ad:::[::[""'"' , ?il3giB3:,"tending Elsineer (operation circle)' rssPDCL' R R East circle' , ynS*5:gt"l 5i,f.1l'3,'iEl'1!l nee r (o peration ci rcr e )' rs s P DC L' I DA ^ |ff:llill; [S"3i?S8hrqer,rP:s.?PSL;l?A' Nacharam' R R District S o,Z tt ii -'s 9 i; eeiftltdls;f: $?3 4"i""? D C L ro 7. One CC to SRI N : B. Two CD CoPies p u c r BM t-s l4r HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 ORDER WP.No.40309 of 2015 ./z -t\1 f t-lE ST,., F , t) 10 sEP zflfi i Or- )/ \ :, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .etq"L ux_-<.s \0