The High Court · 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 direct the respondent to release the power supply to the petitioner industry as Sanctioned by the respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition 1 -Z a- Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Res'pondents: SRI ZAKIR ALI DANISH ( SC FOR TSNPDCL ) The Court made the' following: ORDER c..-f a. a- ?r ,1 HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA W IT PETITION No.254 19 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Arcot Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGNPDCL, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. The oetiti oner aDDrOached the Court seekino Draverasu nd er: "...to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent in supplying power to the petitioner industry inspite of fulfilling all the formalities as required by the respondent through his letter dt.27_ B-2010 as arbitrary, unjust and illegal and direct the ;-espondent to release power supply to the . petitioner industry immediately after calling for the records.,,

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief. is that the petitioner firm purchased the land from M/s. Satya parameshwari Granites and obtained necessary permissions from the f -,:& I 2 SN, J \\f,25419 2010 Industries Department for establishing granite slab cutting and polishing machine. The petitioner purcl^ased a transformer from the respondent companv and spent a significant amount on electricity equipment and insiallation. Despite ccmpleting all formalities, the respondent tailed to provide power supply. The respondent sanctioned the proposed high-tension category (HTCAT I) service load of 99 KVA to th'3 petitioner firm, but failed to release the power supply. Thr: petitioner had informed the respc,ndent about the installation of the transformer in the petitioner's prerrises and requested them to supply power. However, despite repeated requests, the respondent did not provide power supply. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. This Court vide its order dated L3.L2.2 O1O in W.P.M.P.No.32463 of 2O1O oassed interim orders in favor of the Detitioner observino as under: "Petitioner seeks directions to the respondent to release the power supply to it as sanctioned by them. \ :- -r4 J SN, J wP 254t9 20rc The petitioner is a partnership firm, which has purchased the land of an extent of 1625 sq.yards covered by Survey No.281lA1, 283/AA|/AA, 283/AA7/A, situated at Kaikondayagudem Viilage, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District, From its earlier owner, M/s. Satya parameshwari Granites, by a registered sale deed, dated 10.03.2010. In the said land, the petitioner has set up a granite industry and submitted an application to the respondent for providing electricity service connection with 99 KVA. Thereupon, the respondent Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, ApNpDCL, Khammam, issued proieedings in letter bearing No.SE/OpN/ KM M/COMM L/F. HTlD. No. 53 7 / LO_LL, dated 27.08.20 1 0, asking the petitioner to pay the development. charges of Rs. 1,48,500/-service line charges of Rs. 1,45,910/_ and the service line charges of Rs.1,45,910/_ and the security deposit of Rs.49,500/_. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of paying such a mounts, as demanded by it, the respondent is not providing service connection to its unit. It is submitted that the petitioner firm has established the granite industry by huge investment of Rs.65,00,000/-, which was secured by way of loan lrom the State Bank of Hyderabad, MSME Branch, Khammam. It is also submitted that due to inaction on L l t$ 4 SN, .I Np 2j4t9 lr.)l(l the part. of the respondent, the petitioner industry is being sr-rffered. l\ counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent' In the counter-affidavit, it ls statecl that in the premises of the petitioner, earlier, there were three service connections bearing S C Nos' 190800946' 190800879 and 190800878, provided to M/s S'rtya Parameshwari G ra nites, M/s.Parameshwari Granites and M/s.Satya Granites respectively' It is further stated :hat earlier, when the vendor of the petiti(lner was utilizing the premises for granite industry an inspect on was made on 21.03'2001 and as the respondent found all the three units are existing irr the same premises, they were clubbed and demand was made for H.T. supply. Then, the original consllmer questicned the same by raising a disputr: beforer the District Consumer Forum, Khammam, in C D Nos 236' 237 artd 238 of 2001, in which, the directions were issued not to convert the same' The respordent carried the matter by way of appeal befc)re the litate Consurner Disputes Redressal Commission in F A Nos' 1000, 1013 and 1014 of 2006, which were allowed on 29.07 .2OOg. It ls further stated that the orlginal consurner has filed R.P.No.3476 of 2009 beforr: the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commis;sion, New Drelhi, and the same is pending consideration' it ,. l- 5 SN, J wt, 254t9 2010 is also stated that in view of differential claim between H.T. and L.T. Tariffs, an amount of Rs.50,52,g77/ is due from the previous consumer and as per the Regulations, which are in force now, the petitioner is responsible for payment of arrears and till such arrears are paid, no service connection can be provided. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the total due amount i.e. Rs.50,52,977/ is on account of three service connections, which were provided to M/s.Satya parameshwari Granites, M/s. Parameshwari Granites and M/s.Satya Granltes, and that the petitioner has only. purchased the premises belonging to M/s.Satya parameshwari Granites, against which, arrears are to the tune oF Rs. 77,88,773/-.It is also submitted that as the petitioner is not seeking continuation of earlier supply and it has made an application for new service connection, it is not liable to pay the arrears of the original consumer. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in view of the Regulations, which are in force, the petitioner is not entitled to service connection unless it clears the arrears of the earlier service connections on the premises in question. -l \ I t e' 6 SN. J \\,P 25,119 2010 Whether the petitioner is liable to pay the arrears; amount in view of its application for grant of fresh s;ervice connection is a matter, which requires consideration at the time oF disposal of the writ petition. Taking into account the fact that the rer''ision petition filed by the original consumer is pending before the National Commission and as it is slated that tl-re petitioner has already paid the development charges, service line charges and security deposit amount and it has already set up the unit for ruttning the granite industry by availing bank loa'r of Rs.65,00,000/-, I deem it appropriate to direcl tire respondent to provide service connection to the petitioner on payment of an amount of Rs' 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) within a period of four (4) weeks from today in addition to the regular charges which are payable as per thr: terms and condit ons of the supply. It is made clear that payment of the aforesaid amount is subject to final orders of the writ petition. Service connection is to be provided to the petitioner industry within a pericd of two (2) weeks from the date of payment of aforesaid amount."

5. Learned counsel aDDean no on behalf of ner vide memo dated 26.L2.2024, brinqs on 24 Dassed in Revr st on der dated 07.O2.2O record the or t b. 1 SN, J wP 25419 20t0 Petition Nos.3475, 3476 and 3477 of 2OO9 and the re leva nt ara ra h Nos.1 n D 2a n d 1 3o he said order a re f t extracted here under: "12. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that this was a small scale unit set up with a funding from the State Finance Corporation and that the same has been closed since 2012. It is also a fact that the power supply was disconnected when the payment was not made towards the HT connection, which was levied on the Petitioners. It appgars that the unit Functioned for hardly any substantial time due to this issue as seen from the record.

13. At this juncture, I do not see any reason to give an Order either conFirming the Complaint or dismissing the Complaint. Also I do not want to question the terms and conditions of the electricity supply which the Respondent is relying upon. In my opinion, at this stage there should be no liability on the Petitioners for deposit or payment of any amount towards HT connection considering that the mistake was done in the first instance by the Respondent. Such Order is being given, keeping in mind that the units may not have functioned beyond a year at the maximum." l; .'. T 1 I L 8 st'i, l w , 2i419 2010

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the interim ordr:rs of this Court dated 13. i2.2010, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and therefore, the petitione' is entitled for refund of t're said amount.

7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of the order dated 07.O2.2O2.4 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, passed in Revision Petition Nos.34751 3476 and 3477 ot 2OO9 filed by the vendor of the petitioner against the respondents herein, the Writ Petitaon needs to be allowed and the petitioner herein is entitled for the relief as praved for in the present Writ Petition.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitio n er, 9, Takinq into consideration: 9 SN, J wP 2J419 20t 0 a) The facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for TGNPDCL appearing on behalf of the respondent, c) The interim order of this Court dated 13.12.2O1O passed in W.P.M.P.No.32463 of 2010 (referred to and extracted above), d) The order dated O7.O2.2O24 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed in Revision Petition Nos.3475, 3476 and 3477 ot 2OO9 (referred to and extracted above), Though the prayer for refund of the amount had not been pleaded by filing an LA., to that effect before this Court by the petitioner yet at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner for refund of the amount of Rs.lO,Oo,OOO/- deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the interim orders of this Court dated

13.12.2O1O passed in W.P.M.P.No.32463 of 2O10 in the present Writ petition in the light of the Judgment dated 07.O2.2(J24 of the National Consumers Disputes n-,: I l0 SN,.I \vP 25,1t9 2010 Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed in Revision Petition Nos.3475, 3476 and 3477 of 2OO9, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to put- forth a detailed representation to that effect to the respondents herein within one(l) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon the petitioner making the said representation to the respdndents and upon receipt of the same within the time period as indicated as above, the respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner for refund of the amount of Rs.1O,OO,OOO/- deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the interim of this Court dated 13.12.2O1O passed in W.P.M.P.No.32463 of 2010 in the present Writ petition in the light of the Judgment dated O7.02.2O24 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed in Revision Petition Nos.3475, 3476 and 3477 ol 2OO9 and pass appropriate orders on the said representation within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, However, there shall no order as to costs. {: .:- s.? SN, J wP 25419 2010 The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.SRE ASSIST ER AMA MURTHY T REGISTRAR TION OFFICER 'lll::8ffi ','i,'3loi?3'"=1,nJ1"3i,[",fri'&i,Ril,fi 'diil'Ji?i"i::panvorAP aHft :"dn.Bil)tTxfi '#'"t'f iSY,,H^,$sb"f i'iJ353r"1 4. Two CD CoPies TJ GJP \? HIGH COURT CC TODAY . DATED:2110212025 ORDER q".'f WP.No.25419 of 2010 + -rH E S i4l a( + 3 18 itp,R 2m ( ,L g. t -- i,, \--t . -:_: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS G.od"& 9n" (t\at* {