S.A. Azeem v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sr-rpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direcl the Respondents to r;onsider my representation dated 05.09.2024 in accordance with law by restoring the electricity services bearing Service Connection Nos.10190536B and 10'1905370 without imposing any reconnectiol charges on the Petitioner Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. MOHAMMAD |MTIYAZ PASHA Counsel for the ResFrondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Resp,ondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY SC FOR TSSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5&6: -- The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA RIT ETI ON 6 50 20 ORDER: Heard Mohammad Imtiyaz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energy, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counse! for TSSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos'2 to 4' 2 The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: "...to issue any writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring the actions of the Respondents, includlng the impugned letter Lr.No.ADE/OP/ASRaoNagar/ D'No'15/24/25' dated 06.09.2024, issued by Respondent No'3' as arbitrary, highhanded, ultra vires, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India' wherein my representation was summarily rejected on the ground that the lease agreement is unregistered and lacks evidentiary value under Section 17(d) of the Registration Act, 1908' which is a legal question that has to be adiudicated by the competent court of law and not unilaterally decided by a government officer, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider my representation dated 2

05.09 2024 in accordance with law and restore electricity services bearing Service Connection Nos.:10190536g and 101905370 without imposing any reconnection charges on the petitioner, ancj pass such order or orders as this Hon,ble Court may deems fii and proper in the circumstances of justicr:. " 3, The brief facts of the case are that the petiti{)ner is the lawful lessee and occupant of the premises bearing H.No.3_5_ 229/7/2/3, Block No.5, Krishna Nagar Colony, Mallapur, Medchal-Malk;rjgiri District, Telangana. The petitioner is residing in the said pr€,mises along with his family under lease agreement for a period st_arting from 15.06.2023 to 14.06.2027.The lease agreement was executed between the petitioner and r:spondent Nos.S & 6 and the petitioner paid security deposit amount of Rs.20,00,000,/- to the respondent Nos..5 and 6. On 24.05.2024, respondent No.5 with malacious intention submitted Demand Draft Nos.418595 and 418593 to the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL), requesting to dismanUe the electricity connection to the subject premises. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner dated 05.Og .2024 to respondent respondents to made a representation No.4 requesting the restore the petitioner,s power supply. However, 3 without considering the said representation, the 4th respondent passed impugned proceedings No.ADE/OPIAS Rao Nagar/D.No.775/24-25 dated 06.09.2024 stating that no action IS required to be taken on the representation flled by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. The imo oned Drocee danqs No.ADE loP /AS Na a D.N :775 4-25

06. .20 Ass stant rvrston al Enqi eer O eration A.s. Rao Naoar, T SP L ad the etitioner h reln e hereu nder:- With reference to the above cited, I have taken legal opinion and it is to inform that "As per Section 17 (d) of Registration Act 1908, leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one yearr or reserving a yearly rent shall have to be made by a registered document' Since the lease agreement dated 15.06.2023 relied on by Sri SA Azeem is an unregistered lease deed, it has no evidentiary value and hence it cannot be taken into consideration to hold that Sri SA Azeem is the tenant of the subject premises. Admittedly, Sri Khaja Hussain is the owner of the subject premises' In the circumstances mentioned above and in view of the 4 fact tlrat Sri SA Azeem failed to establish his ternancy over the su bject premises,,. Hence these is no need of taking any action on your 13presentation (Sri.S.A.Azeem).,

5. The rea'ned counser appearing on beharf of the petitioner submits that the order impugned dated 06.0g.2024 needs to be set aside, since the petitioner is in possession of the subject premises in |he capacity of tenant, the petitioner made a representation dated 05.Og.2OZ4 for restoration of pourer. supply to S.C.Nos.10l905368 and 101905370 in respect of the subject premises beerring No.3_5_22911 /2/3, Ward No.3, Block No.5, Krishna Nagar Colony, Mallapur, GHMC, Circle, Uppa Mandal, Medchal- Ma lkajg iri District, Telangana, and the same cannot be rejected on the ground that the petitioner relied on unregistered lease deed. Th e petitioner as on date is in possession of the subject premis(_-s and the official respondents high-handedly disconnected the power supply.

6. Learned Sitanding Counsel for TSSpDCL, appearing on behalf of responrlent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the petitioner faired to produce the r,:levant documents in support of the petitioner,s claim evidencirrc that the petitioner is the occupant of the \ 5 subject premises and the petitioner relied upon an unregistered lease deed and hence, the representation of the petitioner' dated 04.09.2024 had been rejected' He further submits that upon the petitioner making a fresh representation seeking for restoration of electricity service connection to USC No'101905368 and SC.No.170200098 pertaining to the subject ProPerty i.e., bearing No.3-5-229l1/2/3, Block No'5, Mallapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana' the same would be considered in accordance with law upon the petitioner furnishing the requisite documents as mandated under the rules' Krishna Nagar ColonY, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does 7. not dispute the said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4. 8 und er: - n o th r A 2 "section 43. (DutY to (1)[Save as otherw distributionl licensee, r o supply on request) ise Provided in this n n h re is f ul n h Act, everY t n o h Provided that where such supply requires extension distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub- r 6 " i ri ", station s, the distribution licensee shall supply the lll:,i,!,,v to such premises irruoiutljv afrer such exten:sion or commissi( J il ;#'^',;',Ld.31"-tu ; #" f i,, .i; r; u " r_p, I Act 2€i tf 2007, Sec.B ior tne worOs-,it"".v'iirirrortior- Provided further that in case of a village ,lr hamlet or area wherein no provisio.n for supply oi JZltncity exists, the Appropriate Commissiol ,uy "it"ri tn" ,.i,] period as ry fo r etectrifLa tion-# s u cn vi r ra s e f. T:1, i;?X.li".:necessa Exprana':ion.- For the purposes of this sub-section, "applical:ion" means theapplicatior.#pf"iJ in ail respects in the appropriate form., as required by the c{istribution licensee, along with aocumenii ,f,o"_nq'-puyment of necessitry charges and other compliances.j (2) It :sha[ be the duty of every distribution ricensee to provide, if required, erectric prant'oiur".i;;li;., for giving electric suppry to the premises specirieJ-in iu'o_section 1r; , Provided that no person shall be entiiled t,l demand, or' [o continue to receive, From a ticensel u i-po,v or el,ertricity for any premises having a sepaiate-srppty unl,-'ss he has agreed with the ti.";;* i; p.,r' ,o n,_ such price as determined by ftre'-dppr.opr,utu Commission. (3) If a cristribution Iicensee fails to supply th within thi, period specified in sub_sectro,i i r i. ,9 a penatry *rricrr mav-i;,;;'i",'J; llu-bl" rupees for each day of default.,, e electricity he shall be e thousand

9. The Apex Court vide judgment fttoop and Sons,,, reported unregistered leerse agreement In (2000) in "Anthony Vs. K.C. 6 SCC 394, neld that can still serve as evidence of 7 possession and occupation under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

10. The Apex in the Judgment reported in 2O23 Livelaw (SC) 453 in between K.C'Ninan Vs' Kerala State of Electricity Board and others passed in Civil Appeal Nos.21O9 and 211O of 2OO4, dated 19'O5'2023, observed as under: "Electricity Act, 2OO3; Section 43 - The dutyto h respect to . supply electricity under Section 43 is wit he 2003 Act the owner or occupier of the premises. T contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer oniy with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities." 1 Th A e d r ed 20L 1 Co s 3 4in n n m ru .Na M A No 75 f 11 edO 2 1 rved as un er: Sub-section (1) of Section 42 and sub-section (1) of Section 4: of the Electricity Act, 2003 are quoted herein below: "42. Duties of distribution licensees and open access- (1) It shall be the duty of a distribution licensee to develop and maintain an efficient co-ordinate and economical distribution system in his area of supply 8 ,aistri5ution 'o*ner and to supply electricity in accordance withr the provisions contained in this Act.,, -",13..t,rty to supply on request_(1) Savr: as otherwis e provided in this nct.'-eu".V licensee shall, on an application OV in" occupierr of any premises, give supply of eteJtricity to such pre,mises, within one month afte. .uiuipt cf tf,e applicati tn requiring such supply., 7. It vyill be clear from sub_section (1) of Ser:tion 42 that every disrriburion ticensee ;.; J;ril io oevetop and merintain an efficient co_oroiniteo lii distributicn system in his a,rea ;i ,rpprv iij ro suppty ".onomi.af electricitv in accordance with the p.ouiiion. .-ontained in this Acr:. Sub-secrion (i) or Seciion every dis:tribution licensee, shall, on un JpJf i.ation. .by the owrrer or occupier of. any premises, gilr!'supprv of :1"^:lii:il to such premises, *itnin oiJ'm-onrh after receipt ,li' the application.requiring such ,rfify. fnu." provision:; in the Electricity Act, )Oo: ,ufJ it amply clear that a distribution licensee f,r* .it"iril"ry duty to supply e ectricity to :1 -owner or o..rpi". of any premise:; located in the ar-ea of supply oilil.t.icity or the distribution licensee, if such o*"nu. liolcupier of the preniises applies for it, and .oi.uipo"noin"gly every owner or tccupier of any premises has i statuiory rignt to apply f'or and obtain such electric .rpp]liirorn tnu distributior licensee. -+i'"pi"rio.,

12. The case of the a ppellant, on the other hand, is that this pass,age rs not a private passage of respondent Nos. ltolb ut is a common passage and therefore an electric ,ine can be drawn through this common passage. T'his dispute will have to be resolved in Civil S uit No.B3 of 2004 pendi ng in the court of Civil Judoe J h ort r t teb tw e s t s n t e e e H lu to I Divtslon t h e e din e ri t f

11. W", therefore, set aside Srngle Jud(le as well as the the order of the learned tmpugned order of the 9 Division Bench and dispose of the Writ Petition of respondent nos. 1 to 3 with the direction that the distribution licensee will find out whether there is any other way in which electric line can be drawn for supply of electricity to the house of the appellant, other than the disputed passage in Dag Nos.406, 407 and 409' If there is no other way to supply electricity to the house of the appellant, the distribution licensee will follow the provisions of sub-section (2) . of Section .67 of the 'Electricity Act, 2003 for carrying out the work for supply of electricity to the house of the appellant' L2. The Aoex Courtint e lud ment DO in2 22 Liv Law 570 in etween Dilip (dead ) throuoh Ls Vs. t20 2 t nC 10 N 1 L n IL 20 9. da d 13.0 5.2022 obse rved as under "It is not disp uted that applicant No.1 has obtained the connection of electricity. The submissions made show that applicant No. 1 is in possession of the shop and he is running a saloon shoP. It is clear that he needs electricity for doing this business, but the first informant was not grvrng no objection certificate. He took every step to see that a pplicant No. 1 does not get suPP|Y of electricitY for his business. It is not the case of the'App licant No. 1 that as per the agreement between him and landlord, the landlord is bound to supply the electricity' Further. the EI e n Boa t T c t V h rl VE such facilitva his own t e n r e ion st. a It is b w e a n f e s r w o t h I I 10 "it r h II r I n9 the FIR. It question Be that as it may, the High Court clearly fell in error in quashi cannot be said that fabrication and,/or creation of records and/or forging a signature does not constitute an offen ce under the Indian Penal Corje. The High Court com pletely overlooked the defi nition r:f cheating in Section 415 of the IpC It is h r I

13. T kinq intocons ide ation: a). The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b). appearing Standing Thr: submissions made by the learned counset on behalf of the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. c). The contents of the petitioner,s representation dated O5.09.2024. d) rhe_ bs n e e u R h d e ts l\re n fer e n ex ra te above) i) The Judgment of the Apex Court in K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State of Etectricity Board and others reported in I I 1l 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453 in Civil Appeal Nos'21O9 and 2110 ol 2OO4, dated 19.O5 .2023, ii) The judgment of the Apex Court in Chandu Khamaru vs. Nayan Malik and Others reported in (2O11)12 Supreme Court Cases 314 in Civil Appeal No.7575 of 2O11 dated O2.O9.2011 iii) The judgment of the Apex Court in Dilip (dead) through Ls Vs' Satish and others reported in 2022 LiveLaw 57O in CRLA No.81O of 2022 (arising out of Special Leave petition (CRL)No'89 L7 ot 2O19' d'ated

13.05.2022. i"l The Judgment of the Apex Court in Anthony Vs' K.C. Ittoop and Sons reported in (2OOO) 6 SC 394' The writ Petition rs disposed of directing the petitioner to make a fresh application to the respondent No.4 herein seeking restoration of electricity service connection bearing USC No'1019O5368 and SC.No.17O2OOO98 within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent No.4 upon receipt of the same with all the requisite documents as mandated under the rules in force I I t2 as on date is directed to consider the same in accordance to law by duly takang into consideration the observations of the Ape>l Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate orders on the said application rnrithin a period of one (1) week thereafter. However, there shail be no order as to costs. Miscell,aneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII To, SD/. K.SREERAMA TRE MURTHY GISTRAR ^ttt'tl Ustc TION OFFICER

1. The Principal lSecretary, Department of Energy, Secretariat, Hy.derabad. z' r.nq velgging Director, Southern power Distribution company of reranoana Limited (TSS pD CL ). corporate offiG, vini Coinpor"d, H;J;jr;;;,'u"vq"q Telangana.

3. Chief Engineer, TSSPDCL, AS Rao Nagar, Habsiguda Circte, TSSPDCL, Hyderabad, Te,l:rngana. Circte, TSSpDCL, Hyderab5d. Gt;6;;;.""""'"

4. The Assistant Drvisional Engine_er, Operations, AS Rao Nagar Habsiguda 5. One CC to SRt. MOHAIVMAD tMIyAZ PASHA Advocate [OptJC] 6. One CC to SRt t'J. SREEDHAR REDDY SC FOR TSSPDCL IOPUC] 7 . Two CCs to G f, FOR ENERGY ,High Court for the State of Tetangana. [OUT] Two CD Copier; 6 KKS GJP ( ! \ s t HIGH COURT DATED:03103t2025 CC TODAY E IAre 'rts { )' ?2 tthR'?ffi lC o i t - i r. -- i - L r.:: \+r--- i !r.1 ("-i I ,! ORDER WP.No.6255 of 2O2S DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ?e