The High Court · 2025

2. Miryala Ramesh S/o. Late Vishwanadham, 3. Miryala Rajesh S/o. Late Vishwanadham 4. Miryala Srinivas S/o. Late Vishwanadham Respondent Jillelaguda, Hyderabad . Nos. 2 .to 4 Rl/o H.No.6-210/1i1lA"/1, Raghavendra Nagar, RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed thergryilh, the High Court pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, to call for the records pertaining to the Award daled 2S.2.2OZS passed in C.G.No. 144t2024-25t Saroornagar Circle on the file of the first respondent and quash the same in so far as directing the petitioners to withdraw the back billing case vide DPE/SRNN7796I24 and directing the petitioners to adjust the anrount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in their future bills, b,y declaring it as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, Award costs. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 suspend the operation of the Award dated 25.2.2025 passed in C.G.No. 14412024- 25lSaroornagerr Circle on the file of the first respondent in so far as directing the petitioners to withdraw the back billing case vide DPE/SRNN7796124 and directing the petitioners to adjust the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by the Respondent Nos. 2lo 4 in their future bills, pending disposal of W.P.No. of 2025. Counsel for ttre Petitioners: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, S.C. FOR TGSPDCL Counsel for thre Respondents No.2 to 4: Ms. NIKITHA GOENKA The Court made the following: ORDER E!- ORDER: The present writ petition is frled challenging the Award dated

25.02.2025 passed by respondent No.l-Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of TGSPDCL (Greater Hyderabad Area), Hyd.erabad, in c.G.No. 14412o24-2'lsaroornagar circle, to the extent of setting aside the back billing and directing the petitioners to adjust the amount paid by respondent Nos.2 to 4 towards back bitling, in their future bills.

2. Heard Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Coirnsel for Telangana State Southern Power Distribution company Limited (TGSPDCL), for the petitioners and Ms.Nikitha Goenka, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the record. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners submits that 3. the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are the lessees of G'Aravinda Kumar, operating "Mahind.ra Elite Weddings and Banquet Halls" in Jillelaguda, Hyderabad. The premises had four electricity connections, three commercial (Category 2l for each floor and one (category 8) for water supply. After inspection, TGSPDCL found all floors used for a single business and clubbed all services into one \ I 2 NBK J wP 25902 2025 account ;lnd a single bill was issued vide letter dated 25.L1.2o24. Thereafter, a provisional Assessment Notice was also issued vide letter dated 23.t2.2o24 for back billing from 14.08.2024 to

06.11.20'2,4 for Rs.3,92,044/- for unauthorized use of electricity. The consrrmers (respondent Nos.2 to 4) paid Rs.1,50,000/- vide pR No.271o2231450, dated 23.ol.2o2s against the back billing case booked fc,r total amount of Rs.3,92,o44/- and the remaining due amount cf Rs.2,42,o441-. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.2 to zl approached the consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, by filing c.G.No.144/2o24-2s/sarrornagar circle and the sarne was partl''r allowed vide Award dated 2s.o2.2o25 setting aside the back billing (holding the officials lacked authority) but upheld the clubbing of meters and directed adjustment of the Rs.1,s0,000/- in future bills. Aggrieved by the sarne, the TGSpDCL filed the present writ petiti<ln arguing the Forum's decision was illegat and that the utility war; empowered under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. He further relied upon the decision of Honble Supreme court in the case of Executhrc Engineer, southertt Electricitg supplg compang oyl orissa Limited vs. sri seetqrqm Rice Milll, whe.:ein it was held that section L26 of the Act is a code in itself and 'rherever there is unauthorized usage of electricity, the 'zatzlzl SCC p lo8 \ \ 3 NBK_J wP 2s902 2025 Y szune can be invoked and the loss caused to the licensee can be collected/recovered.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, for the petitioners, further submits that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 paid the remaining due amount of Rs.2,42,O44/- in cash on 22.09.2025, and the payment receipt is enclosed in this regard.

5. Upon consideration of the submissions and the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum erred in setting aside the back billing assessment. It is to be noted that under Section L26 of the Electricity Act, 2OO3, the licensee is vested with statutory authority to assess and recover charges for unauthorized use of electricity. In the present case, TGSPDCL, upon due inspection, rightly clubbed the multiple service connections being used for a common business purpose and issued a provisional assessment notice for unauthorized use. The Forum's finding that the officials lacked authority is therefore unsustainable in law. However, since respondent Nos.2 to 4 have already paid the full amount of Rs.3,92,044/-, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Award of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum dated 25.02.2025, to the 4 wP 25e0f?bi extent of setting aside the back billing assessment, is set aside. The paynrent made by the respondents shall be treated as valid and adjus;ted accordingly. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER

1. The Clrair Person, Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum of TGSPDCL, (Gre.ater .lty{qpQad frea),_P.No_. _8-3-1671E11, Centrat Power Training lnstitutt: (CPTI) Premises, TGSPDCL, GTS Colony, Vengal Rao Nagar, Erraga,Jda, Hyderabad.

2. One C(l to SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, S.C. for TGSPDCL [OPUC] 3. One CO to Ms. NIKITHA GOENKA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies . I\4P GJP 4A- HIGH COURT DATED i0711012025 HES 1 2 B ftq 7{]26 * ( * ORDER WP.No.25902 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ t'r* ii'if-- ..:. ", .J.-. , ',- . . ..:t: