The High Court · 2025

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to restore service connections to the petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counselfor the Petitioner: Ms. NISHTHA FOR Ms. ABDUL NAJEEB KHAN counselfor the Respondent Nos.2 To 6: sRl N.SREEDHAR REDDY, sc FoR counselfor the Respondent No.7: cp FoR Counsel for the Respondent No.l: - The Court made the following: ORDER =1?tI3""t EiL::'.:.,, ",, 1 i) HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA 1 OR ER: The above writ Petition was filed challenging the orderdatedl2.t2.2o23inAppealNo.38of2023-24issuedby the 1"t respondent - Vidyut Ombudsman'

2.Petitioner,aggrievedbytheprovisionalassessment made by Respondent - TGSPDCL uide Notice dated 22.12'2020 demandingback-billingofRs'10,22,629/-fromlO'12'2O19to 10.12.2020 and clubbing of senice connections which are in the very same building, under the provisions of General Terms andConditionsofsupply,fitedacomplaintbeforethe consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Hyderabad South circle -CGNo.106of2022-23.T]neForumdisposedofthesaid complaintbyitsAwarddated26.09.2022.Subsequently petitioner filed CMP No. O2 of 2022-23 in CG No' 106/2022-23 praying to implement the Award, however the Forum had closed the said Petition on 06.04'2023' It is the case of petitioner that in the meantime' 2.1. Respondents dismantled seven Service connections belonging to petitioner and questioning the same' CG Nos' 344 to 35O of 2022-23 were filed before the Forum' By the common Award datedLs.o1.2o23,complaintswereallowedinpart,directing \\ \ t t i 'tt t I I 2 the consumer/petitioner to pay the arrears against their respective Service Connections aS per tJre final demand raised by Respondents and also directed them to dismantle the said Service Connections. It is contended by petitioner that they are in arrears of only Rs. 96,8561- but respondents debited Rs.22,86,3851- without power consumption and without raising any bills, which was illegal. Therefore, petitioner once again approached the Fo;um by filing a petition for compliance of the Award CG No. 349 of 2022-23 and for payment of compensation of Rs. 25,OOOl- as on 06.06.2023, thereafter, @ Rs.1OO0/- per day with effect from 07.06.2023 till filing of compliance and to withdraw Rs. 22,86,385/- and refund the same with interest @ 24o/o p.a. till its refund'

2.2. Said petition dated 14.08.2023 was returned by the Forum on 30.09.2023. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed Appeal No. 38 of 2023-24 before the l"t Respondent; by Award dated

12.t2.2O23, the said Appeal was dismissed confirming the Award of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. euestioning the order dated L2.12.2O23, petitioner is before this Court. 2-3. Ms. Nishitha, learned counsel representing M/s Abdul Najeeb Khan, learned counsel for petitioner contends that order of the l"t respondent is wholly illegal and he did not / ( i'\ / \ J ) consider several issues raised by them, therefore, the said Award has to be set aside. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel Sri N' 3. Sreedhar Reddy appearing for Respondents 2 to 6 contends that Writ Petition, as framed, is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that neither the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum is made a party respondent to writ Petition nor the Award passed by the Forum has been challenged. It is further contended that Respondents are empowered to club the services as per Clause 3.5 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply. Clause 3.5 read as under.

3.5.1. For the purpose of GTCS, seParate establishments shall include the following types of establishments: i. Having distinct set-up and staff; ii. Owned or leased by different persons; iii. Covere{ by different licenses or registrations under any law where such procedures are applicable; and iv. For domestic category, the households having a separate kitchen. S.S.S.Notwithstandingtheaboveprovisions'the Company reserves the right, where it is reasonably established, that the consumers of the same group or family or firm or comfany who are availing supply under different service connlctions situated within a single premises by splitting the t t t i 4 units, the Company may treat such multiple connections existing in the single premises as a single senrice connection and charge the total consumption of all the consumers at the .appropriate tariffs applicable for a single service connection. Any officer authorised by the Company shall issue notices to the concerned consumers asking them to furnish a single application for all such services and to pay required charges for merging the services into a single service.

3.5.4. Wherever the total connected load of all such multiple connections exceeds 75 HP, the consumers must necessarily switch over to HT supply or LT III(B) as the case may be and regularize their services duly following the procedure for availing such supply, within 6O days from the Date of Service of such notice,. If the consumer still fails to pay the necessary charges to convert to the specilied category, the services will be disconnected after 6o days from the date of service of the notice. Pending such switch over, the licensee shall be entitled to bill the service at HT tariff as per the procedure mentioned under clause 12.3.3.2(i).

3.1. l,earned Standing Counsel also contends that the Hon'lcle Supreme court in hnjab state Electricitg Board v. ,, r I t t I 5 Ashutani Kumarr held that "clubbing of separate Service connections in single premises is permissible and back bilting can be assessed under Section 126 of Electricity Act for the loss caused due to taking of separate connections". It was further held that *the Inspecting Officer of the Department was only discharginghisdutiesandthereportsubmittedbyhimcannot be disbelieved unless and until there was different and cogent material on record for arriving at a different conclusion"' It is further stated that it is the obligation of every consumer to comply with the requirement of Regulations and not to abuse the advantage given under the policy of the Electricity Board' If there is pima facie record to show that the consumer had attemptedtocircumventthecircularandwithanintentionto avoidpaymentofhighertarifftwoconnectionswerebeing utilizedund.erthegarbofdifferentpremiseswhileinfactitwas oneandthesamepremises,penalconseiluencesmustfollow'

5. Perused the record' As per the judgment of Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Ashuotni.Kumar(supra)coupledwithSection126ofthe2oo3 Act, assessment can be made for the loss caused to the respondentsinviewofthepetitionerusingmultipleService Connections under lower tariff. Therefore, there is no illegality ' 20ro (7) scc 569 \ t t t I t. 6 -) or irregularity in the order passed by the lst respondent confirming the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Fottm.

6. Moreover, petitioner, who approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari cannot re-agitate the issues which are already decided by two fact-finding fora. Learned Standing Counsel contended that the scope of Writ of Certiorari is limited only to the jurisdictional error and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Centrq.l Council for Research in Agttttedic Sciences Vs Biko;rtan Das2 wherein it has been held that "the two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of Writ of Certiorari, the High Court does not exercise power of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which determination of the inferior Tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the I faqe of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative 2 (2O23lF scc 462 E. 7 writ, should not be issued on mere asking. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art' 226 of the Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order is challenged in the Writ Petition is found to be illegal or invalid, the High Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder, can refuse to upset it with a view of doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although found on legal injury. It is perfectty open for the writ Court, exercising the flexible power to pass orders as public interest dictates and equity projects. After considering all the facts, this court is of the

7. opinion that the above Writ Petition has to fail for the reasons that Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum is not made a party nor the Award passed by it has not been questioned in the above Writ Petition, and. on the tWo cardinal principles governing the issue of writ of certiorari as the petitioner has not shown nor contended that the Award passed by the vidyuth ombudsman was one without jurisdiction, or palpably erroneous.

8.Inviewoftheabovediscussion,thisCourtfindsno itlegality or irregularity in the action of Respondents and the t i ?. ?. f:.l-. 8 Writ Petition as framed is totally misconceived and is liable to be I dismissed for the reasons stated above. I

9. costs.

10. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. ) Sd/.AJAYASREE //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. One CC to Ms. ABDUL NAJEEB KHAN, 2. One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC 3. Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court FOR for the State of l^o Hyderabad. TOUTJ ry 4. Two CD Copies PSK/DL HIGH COURT DATED i1810912025 ORDER WP.No.2170 of 2024 t / I ". .".. j\ lJti - .j, m ;.:-. ,.: ) + DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 7i