The High Court · 2025

It is further the case of the petitioner that the 3d respondent instead of disconnecting the electricity supply of the 4th respondent under SC No.1013g14 issued the proceedings, dated 12.12.2014 intimating the petitioner herein that as per instructions of their standing legal advisor of TSSpDCL, the petitioner is requested to approach competent Court to obtain direction for disconnection of electricity supply for the SC No.1013814 under the 4th respondent herein. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in rereasing and continuing the electriclty supply to the 4th respondent under SC No.1013814 .- as arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions of supply of power, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 6

4. PERUS E D TH E RECO RD: A. The D.N 11 Lr.No. ADE/OP /SFBS tcrl DI / F-Leq all c rder, | 1.4, dated 1-2.L2.20 t4 of the 3 t-d resoondent add ressed t,l-Ehe petitioner waof is extracted here.undel.,:: "Adverting to the above cited subject', 'ricle under referenct., and as per the instructions of our st'rnding Legal Adv;sor of TSSPDCL, you are hereby requested to Approacl- competent Court and obtain d re:tion for discr:nrre:tion of electricity supply for the above sr':rvices'" B. Ihe_ releva nt Dorti n of the iud m n

29.OA.2023 resoondent alon ini unctiona at O.S.No. 679 of 2014 filed bv the 4th toq rant Deroet al o with three other t de ndan h l.e GHMC, Tank und H de o rs (para Nos.

8.2,9 & 10).

8.2. Norte of the documents filed by the pla ntiffs shows their cw'nership or legal possession over the s;uit: schedule proDerty. As this suit is filed by plaintiffs prayirrg this Court to rest rerin the defendant corporation from int:rfering with the pos session of plaintiffs, hence this Court is of the opiniorr that it was the burden of plaintiffs tc' Frrove their possesision over the suit schedule property' A:'; plaintiffs iailed tt> prove their possession over the suit schedule propertv, hence this Court is of the opinion that they are not er titled for the relief of granting perpetLal injunction restraining the defendant " corpbration. frrlIIt' "causing-- interfe rt,rnce in possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedult: property or to demolish the srlit schedule ProPert\f '. / / 7 Issue Number 2 :-

9. It is the own evidence of pW1 that notice under section 685 of GHMC Act was not issued to the defendant corporation. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that suit is not maintainable without issuing notice under section 685 of GHMC Act to the defendant corporation. fssue Number 3:- 10. In the result, the suit is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that both parties shall bear their own costs. C. The counter affidavi filed bv re Dond nt No.4 and tn raN s.8 d11 a der: - B. I respectfully submit that, in reply to the assertions mentioned in para 4 of the Writ Affidavit that, ,,..I submit that the respondent No.4 herein is not a duly inducted tenaxt in the above properties owned by the petitioner ya.q.f at Lakdikapool...." is concerned Respondent No.4 is holding a valid document showing his right as tenant of Petitioner Waqf which is filed as Ex-R1, hence the said assertion is denied and also if petitioner is aggrieved by any Tenant, procedure established by law says to approach appropriate forum having subject .matter jurisdiction but not the Hon'ble High Court. That, in ieplyto further assertions mentioned in para 4 that, ,,...However, appe.ars that he is illegally inducted into the property of the petitioner waqf in connivance with Mr.Masiuddin Kabeer gn! Mr, Khusru Ali Baig, Mr.Khusru Ali Baig falsely claimed to be the Hon. Secretary of the petitioner Waqf. ilowever, it is to be stated that the Hon,ble A.p:State Waqf Tribunai by order dated 30-09-2014 in r.A.No.155 oi zOii in O.A.No.64 of 2013 granted interim injunction restraining the members of the committee of which the saicl Khsuru Ali Baig purports to be the Hon. Secretary from interfering with or causing disturbance to the management of the petitioner Waqf through me as the Secretary and in administering various educational institutions run by the ,.,,\ I -his petitionor wakf through me a-s Corresponclertt" "" is ion.,rrn 3c it's an ima{ination of person in.te "ce:ding for p;ilii;",;' wakf as R6spondent No'4 is ho dirrg valid Tenancl A'greement which entitled Responde rt No'4 to business in the premises c'f Fl Nos 6-1- .J.ini.-"r- iosr, r; L-1081/1 in Lakdikapool, Hyderabad' Ivloreover' ,uiO-i.n,1f ,,.f 55 of 2014 in O.A'No'64 of 2013, vrar; ordered lnfV "" :.0-Og-2074, it is pertinent to mentior here that' said Khsr.rru Ali Baig was appointed as Hon Secretary of p"tit on=r. Wakf on Dated: 04-11-2013 vide resolution Dated: O4-Ll-2013 and the same was acknorvltldged by in"- Cr i,,f Executive Officer, A'P State \ /akl' t:)oard on oaieO: ;t 7-ll-2013 vide F.A'No'42lHyd/Cl2OL')-):lI' it was during this time Respondent No'4 has obtain:d Tenancy anJ ruc-OOiection-Certificate which wer€) requisite in oUiaining 'vaiid permissions from Respondent Nos'1 to 3 for ELitti. tt' suppiy. That, even if seen with Magrrifl"ing glass iuiO o',i,=t- in I'R.tto.l5s of ZOl4 in O'A'l'1o 64 of 2013' no*n"r., mentions that all the actions of l;aic t< hsuru Ali guig u,' Hon. Secretary of Petitioner Wakf'-don<'r prior to ,uii OtO.,r in I.A.No.155 of 2OL4 in O'A'No'64 of 2013 are -l-he other assertions are denied in toto' (Copy of invalid, iesolut orr Dated:04-11-2013 appointing Mirza !l huzro Ali Baig a5 Hon'ble secretary of Petitioner^wakf uhich was act i,owt.,,dged by The Chief Executive Officer.' A'P State -eoard on Dated:27-11-2013 vide Wak:f i.A.N" 42/Hyd/Cl2013-Zl and No-objection c'3rtificated isr.J nr Petiiioner Wakf is filed herein as Ex-R2 and Ex- R3 -esllectivelY) 11. I rt:spectfully submit that, in reply to the assertions menticn,:d'in Para 7 of the Writ Affidavit that, " ' "I submit tnit tfe third respondent issued another lettt:r dated 26- it-zO, q to the 4th respondent calling upon hirn 1:o produce l.loooiu.tionCertificateandvalidRentall\grr:ernentfrom iii" oilqinur owners within 3'days' from the date of receipt otherwise the electricity connectic'n would be notice s concerned discon re:r:ted without any further notice" " "' Resporrclent No'4 immediately after receivinr; [he letter' huu" ,,pprou.hed the said authority and s'rbmitred all the rele:va'it. materials as mentioned,.in the Letler' ln reply to furthe - itssertions mentioned in Para 7 that, ' "'I submit that tl e 4th respondent could not have sub'mittel any NOC anc val'cl Rental Agreement from the orlgiral owner as -as / / 9 there is no such documents are with him. However, no action has been taken...." is concerned only based on imagination of petitioner no cause of action will arise as petitioner himself in his affidavit stated ,,could not have submitted". It is for the petitioner to know all the facts before initiating a litigation as Respondent No.4 has submitted all the relevant material as asked in Letter. DISCUS ION ND oNc LUSIO N:- DISCUSSI ON:- s. Th lea r ed ehalf of ubm sro nior desi tion rm nl a eann on ts-f rth e i) The 4th respondent has no legal right as a tenant in respect of the properties belonging to the petationer waqf located at Lakdikapool and he had been illegally inducted into the subject property. ii) In response to the petitioner,s representations, seeking disconnection of the electricity supply to the 4th respondent under SC No.1O13914, the 3'd respondent issued letter, dated 2G.11.2014 to the 4th respondent to submit the relevant documents i.e., no objection certificate, rental receipf,. vatid rentat agreement and when the 4ll .respondent failed to submit the said retevant documents, the 3'd respondent instead of disconnecting the subject electricity supply provided to the 4th 10 respondent under SC No' B1-13814 had isstred the impugned p:oceedings, dated 1-2't2'2OL4 requesting the petitioner to approach competent Court and obtained direction fol rlisconnection of electricity supply of the 4th respondent herein and the same is illegal and arbillrary' iii) The action of the 3'd respondent is contrary to the terms and c)nditions of the power supply' iv) The 4th respondent along with three others lrad filed suito.S.No,6T9of2ol4tograntperpetualinju'nction against the defendants thereunder i'e', against tlre GHMC Tankbuncl, Hyderabad and two others in respect of property bearing munacipal No'6-1-1O81,6-1-108 1/1 to 4 and 6-1-1O8?-/L to 12 admeasuring 7,OOO sq'ft located at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed vide judgment, rlated 29.08.2O23 in O'S'No'679 ot 2Ol4 passed by the Courlr of the VI Assistant Judge, City Qirlil Court' Hyderabad and therefore, the petitioner is entitlerd for the relief as prayed for in the present'Writ Petition' The lear ds n ior esr na co nsel ar rno on behalf of t o b ve referred submissions. contended th t the Wri t Petition ne ds to be a I lowed agp.rayed-i9t. I / 7', 11 6 I n n a earln on beh lf the official resD ond ent Nos. 1to 3h erein m tn lv Duts- th fol wt b rssr ns:- i) There is no illegality in the order, dated L2.12.2O14 passed by the 3.d respondent herein, since as per Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2O03, owner or occupier is entitled for etectricity service connection. ii) The action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in releasing and continuing the electricity supply to the 4th respondent under SC No.B1-13914 is legal and in accordance to Sectaon 43 of Etectricity Act, 2OO3. iii) The disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent herein cannot be decided or adjudicated either by the 4th respondent or by this court under Articre 226 ot the Constitution of India and therefore, the petitioner was requested to approach competent Court to obtain appropriate direction for disconnection of the electricity power 'supply ,of thi .4th respondent under Service Connection bearing SC No.B1_13g14. herein, - subject iv) The electricity. supply .issued.,,in,,favour.,of ,.4th. respondent cannot be disconnected at the instance of the I l2 petitioner herein since an occu pier/ possessor is also entitled for electricity supply which is integral part of right to life: nf a Citizen. Basetl on the foresaid submiss ions, the learn ed standinq t:1,unsel apoearinq on behalf of the officia! resDondent Nos.l to 3 contended that there ls ncl illeqality in the actiglll of the resoondent Nos. 1 to 3 in . releasinq and contin11inq the etectricitv supplv to the 4tlesoondent tv in the .B1-13814 nor there is anv illeq under sc. roceedin s dated 12.12.2O14 issued to the oetitioner bv the 3'd ndent herein.

7. The learned unofficial responden No.4 mainlv outs-forth t unsel aDDearinq on behalf of the h followinq submissio i) The res;pondent No.4 in the capacity of the tenant of the subject premises is an occupier and possessor of the subject pr()perty ,an{ hg.1ge, is gntilf9d for, the electricity service connection as per Section 43 of the Electricity Act,

2003. . ii) The dismissal .of the suit filed by the petitioner O.S.No.679r of 2OL4 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, 13 City Civil Court, Hyderabad is not an order passed on merits, but since notice under Section 6g5 of GHMC Act was not issued to the defendant Corporation i.e.. GHMC, the lower Court hetd the suit as not maintainable and therefore, the said judgment has no rerevance to the present case. iii) Till the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent is resolved before competent Civi! Court, 4th respondent's right to eiectricity supply which is an integral part of right to tife of the 4th respondent cannot be denied to the 4th respondent nor the 4th respondent can be deprived of the same without following due process of law. un el Based on the afo saids bmi sto s,t el ea rned No.4 contends thatt he Writ Petition needs to be rtn on behalf I e n co NCL sro 8. On perusai 6f tne record, it is evident that the petitioner in the present Writ petition had not challengedl the proceedings. dated LZ.LZ.2OLA.of,,the, Br9 raspongsrl, issued to the petitioner, but prayed for issuance of Writ of t4 Mandamus rleclaring the action of the respondent Nos' 1 to3inreleasingandcontinuingtheelectricitysupplyto the 4th respondent under SC No'81-13814 as arbitrary' discriminat<try and without any legal authority and consequentrly direct the official respondent Nos' 1 to 3 to disconnect the electricity service connection bearing SC No.B1-13814 ' 9 Secti on 43 of th Ele ricitv Act, 2003 is; extracted hereunder:. "section 43. (Duty to supply on request) (1)[Sa,rr: as otherwise provided'in this A::t, every distribut'onl licensee, shall, on an aoolica-tion-by-!]tg qULnC!:-or occuDier of anv Dremises' qiv-€L$!pply--9f C.!_eElIEitv to such Premise i[-9.nth after rccc!-p! of a tio re l)r,lvided that where such supply recluir:s extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub- statiorrs, the distribution licensee shall surpply the eter:tri:ily to such premises immediately efter such extens;ic n or commissioning or within such pr:rirld as may be spr:cified by the -Appropriate Commissiorr 1 Subs' by Act,26 r:f 2007, Sec.8 for the words "Every disl'ril)ution" I I 7 15 Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or a rea. 1[Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub_section, "application" means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances.l (2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub_section (1) Provided that no person shall be entifled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission. (3) If a dist.ribut within the period liable to a pena rupees for each d ion licensee fails to supply fhe electiicity specified in sub-section (1), he shall be Ity which may extend to one thousand ay of default." tt) It is l;pecific case of the 4th respondent that the 4th 10. respondent is the tenant of the subject properties and the 4th respondr:nt adopting due legal procedure obtained the electricity power supply and the 4th respondent r:rbtained valid permi:;sion from the petitioner waqf and errtr::red into possession of the subject property' The sard specific contentions rcf the 4th respondent are however' disputed by the petitioner through the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed on behalf unofficial rt:spondent No.4 and it is the specific plea of the the 4th respondent is an encroacher of petitaone|that petitioner waqf property. This Court under Arilicle 226 cannot adjrrclicate the disputes between the petitioner and ,of the 4th resProndent herein' t 1 m urt nt o ed in 20 23 11. The-Al ex Liv Law sc) 453in betwe nK. C.Nin an Vs. K era la State DA ssed in Civil ADD al of El,ectric itv Bo rd and o 2 9 5.2023 observed d 4 N os. 1O9 irn 21 as under: "Tl'e rlr-ty to supply electricity under Section z 3 is with respe(:t to the owner or occupier of the prernisers The 2003 r\ct contemplates a synergy between the / / 77 consumer and premises. under section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities.,, L2. h u n d en re tn 2 1 12 Su re eC urt Ca ses 3t4 ee ch and Khamaru V N anM k n a ed in lvt A No.7 7 2 1 2 2 1 s e as Sub-section (1) of Section 42 and sub_section (1) of ection 43 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_ordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act." "43. Duty to supply on request_(l) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the .application requiring. such supply. "

7. It wlll .be clear from sub-section (1) of Section 4 2 that every. distribution..licensee has. a duty to. develop and maintain an eFficient co-ordinated and economical 18 Act, t ri':itv distributicr.systeminhisareaofsupplyandt,lsupply electr]cit.linaccordancewiththeprovisionscrlnlainedin this Act. !itrb-section (1) of Section 43 provides tl-rat every distributlort licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or oc.uF,icr of any premises, give supply of e ectricity to such pr:rrises, within one month after re':e:ipl' of the applicati lr requiring such supply' These prcv sions in 2003 make it amply cle ar that a the Elec distributicl licensee has a statutory dut"' to supply electricit)' to an owner or occupier of any prernisers located in the artra of supply of electricity of the distribution licens;ee,ifsuchowneroroccupieroFtheprenis(:)sapplies for it, and correspondingly every owner or occrlpier of any premises has a statutory right to apply for anl ot:tain such electrlc st. pply from the distribution licensee' -f.he case of the appellant, on the other hand' is 10. .. that this passage is not a private passage of rr'lspondent Nos.l to 3 but is a common passage and therefore an electric i1e can be drawn through this common passage' This dispute will have to be resolved in Civil Suil No'83 of 2OOtl trernding in the Cou rt of Civil 1 u dqe (Jun ior Den dinq Djvisie n Ho rah orl t an oth r sui d n n b R f d c house. \/Ve, therefore, set aside the order of the learned 11. Single luclge as well as the impugned order of the Division Benr:h arrd dispose of the Writ Petition of resplnrlent nos'1 Y 79 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.4O6, 407 aod 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 6 7 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for carrying out the work for supply of electricity to the house of the appellant.

13. eA ex e m nt re 2 iveLaw 7 Sati h d n etw nD ti e u L V as dinCR N 10 2 2 !n ut of e L av n RL o 7 2 9 dated 13.05.2022 obse rved as un der: "It is not disputed 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 giving no objection certificate. He took every step to see that applicant No. 1 does not get supply of electricity for his business. It is not the case of the Applicant No. t that as...per the agregment between him and landlord, the landlord is bound to supply the electricity. Fu rther, the lec r n ob to veri a that the DOSsession of n -lan ord the tenant r seb d. Th s r R 20 Inq such no obi ection from Ian et nant fro eElaX landl< )r 9u-clli. c ilitv at his own cost. ca no r rd. The ava ilinq R II -it h h a fw ich It is now well settled DTOD sltion oflawt ath g.!Cet! 'I Cl sar!!!t be e-tcr3. nt !a-nllpr tb dec ined .El o fail ro n ob cti nce ficat al oft he . A[l that the a mine rs lon I !ub€! occutlrtion of the oremises in ouestion. Ber that as it may,, t1e High Court clearly fell in error irr quashing the FIt{. t cannot be said that fabrication and,/or :reation of recorrls; and/or forging a signature does not constitute an offenr:er under the Indian Penal Code Ther lligh Court complet{tly overlooked the definition of cheat nei in Section 415 01' the IPc. ctee!d. subie3 terms. ish weve r made clea r Res It a citv deoa ment includi no oavment rlc I cha roes m o t b I eles!u for the sa e. L4. This Court opines that as per Section 43 of the Electricitl' Act, 2OO3 and as observed in the various judgments of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above), all that the Electricity Supply Authority is required 7 2l to examine is whether the applicant for Electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question. The High Court of punjab & Haryana in the case of Omprakash Vs. Balkar Singh reported in 2022 SCC Online P&H 3733 hetd that Electricity is an integrat part of right to life and the same cannot be deprived without following due process of !aw.

15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and conclusion arrived at para Nos. 5 to 11 of the present judgment, this Court opines that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ petition.

16. T R o a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions put-forth by all the learned counsel on record, c) -The'averrlents made in the counter_affidavit filed by 'the unoffidialr respondeht No.4 :(refeired.tcj and extracted above), d) Section:43 of the Electricity Act, 2OO3 (referred to and extracted above), 22 e) The arverments made in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the respon,Jent No,4 , f) The rriew of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above), i. K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State of Electricity Board and others reported in 2O23 Live Law (SC) 453 ii. Chanrlu Khamaru Vs. Nayan Malik and Others reported in (2O11) 12 Supreme Court Cases 314 lll. between Dilip (dead) through LRs Vs. Satish and others 'eported in 2022 Live Law 570 iv. Irr the case of Omprakash Vs. Balkar Singh reported in 2022 SCC Online Punjab & Haryana 3733, f) The cc,ntents of the order dated L2.L2.2AL4 vide, letter Lr.No. ADE/ OP ISFBSICI/F-Legal/ D.No.LL99 I 14 of the 3'd respondent herein (referred to and extracted above), ig) The discussion and'rtondirisiorl arrived at Para Nos.-s to 11 of the present judgment, This Cor.rrt opines that- the present Writ petition is devoid of meriits, and the petitioner is not entifled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Accordingry, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pencling in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 't''-- r sEcTroN-o'F/rcER I I One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA (For Her Ladyships Kind Perusal) To, t. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS CHAMARTHY, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI MORE SHASHI KIRAN, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TS TRANSCO [OPUC] 11 LR Copies The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. Two CD Copies

2. J-

5. t) 7 N. BSR HIGH COURT DATED:01rc512025 CI} TODAY i,{E s '-_::t.- r..l-- l a\\ , /:. k 53 09 i.,i lizli \t\ r-.. tl * t) \_il ,/ ORDER WP.No.1022 of 2015 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS q0 ..1 \ q b