High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more pa(icularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Proceedings of the 4th respondent issued vide No.CGM(O)KZIKNL/Comml/F.HT MBN- 505/D.No.5966112, Dt.22-O9-2012 as dues for an amount of Rs.18,01 ,5541- lor the per/od from. April, 1996 to 16-10-2001 to the HT Service Connection No.MBN-503 at Telephone Exchange, Mahabubnagar confirming the proceedings No. SE/OP/MBNR/Comml-ll/D.No.3047, Dt.21-12-2002 of the 3rd respondent and notice of demand of Rs.17,98,543-90 vide Lr.No. ADE/OPN/MBNR/F.No.269/ D. No.1 644, D|.2O-12-20O1 issued by 1'r respondent and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and ultra virus the provisions of Sec.26(6) of lndian - Electricity Act, 1910 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to restrain from taking any coercive action I.A. NO:1OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 45472 OF 20121 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 proceedings No.CGM(O)KZIKNL/Comml/F.HTM BN- 505/D.No.5966112, Dt.22-09-2012 of the 4th respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(V1/\/MP. NO: 1589 OF 2016) Between: Mahabubnagar- 509 001. A.P.C.P.D.C.L, N/ettugadda, Mahabubnagar- 509 001.

1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, (Elec), Operation Sub Division, 2. The Divisional Engineer, ( Elec. operations) A.p.C.p D.C.L, Mettugadda, 3. The Superintending Engineer, Operations, A.p.C.p.D.C.L, Mettugadda, 4. The Chief General [\rlanager, Operation, A.p.C.p.D.C.L, Kurnool Zone, 5. The Chief .M_an^agrng Director, A.P.C.P.D.C.L, Vidyut Soudha, Somaji Guda, ...PET|T|ONERS/RESPONDENTS Mahabubnagar- 509 001. Hyderabad- 500 004. Kurnool. AND Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (A Govt.of lndia Enterprise), Reo.bv its Divisional Engineer (lntl), Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar Distric(.' ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 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 vacate the interim orders dated: 20-1 1-2012 in wptvp No. 4s472 of 2012 in W.P.No.35773 of 2012 and dismiss the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. C. VANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY (sc FoR TGSPDCL) The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITIO N No. 35773 oF 2012 ORD ER: Heard Smt.C.Vani Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri N'sreedhar Reddy' tearned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, appearing on behalf of the resPondents' a d c k e 2 T as un d t "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Proceedings of respondent issued vide No'CGM the 4th (O)KZlKNL/CommUF.HT MBN-505/D'No' s966lt2' Dt.22-Og-2012 as dues for an amount of Rs.18,01,554/- for the period from April, 1996 to 16- 10-2001 to the HT Service Connection No'MBN-503 at Telephone Exchange, Mahabubnagar confirming the proceedings No.SE/OP/MBNR/Comml-II/D'No'3047' Dt.21-12-2002 of the 3'd respondent and notice of demand of Rs.17,98,543-90 vide Lr'No'ADE/OPN/ MBNR/F.No.269l D.No.1644, Dt.2O'12'2001 issued by 1't respondent and declare the same as illegal' arbitrary, unjust and ultra virus the provisions of Sec.26(6) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and set aside 2 SN,J Np 35773_2012 the same and consequenfly direct the respondents to restrain from taking any coercive action and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.,,

3. The case oF the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondents on 03.01.1994 for the supply of electrical energy to the Telephone Exchange at Mahabubnagar. The agreement stipulated a contract load oF 200 KVA with a minimum charge for 170 KVA. The respondent authorities issued a demand notice to the petitioner vide Lr.No.ADE/OpN/ M.Nagar/F.No .269/D.No.7644, dated 20.12.2001 demanding an amount of Rs.17,98,543.90 towards back billing. Though the petitioner submitted his objections, without considering the same, respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 21.12.2002 quantifying the same amount i.e., Rs.17,98,543.90 as a loss due to the defect in CTpT and directed the petitioner to pay the said amount. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.4, however the respondent No.4, without following the statutory provisions for assessing excess consumption, dismissed the said appeal vide proceedings dated 22.09.20t2 by uphotding the order dated J SN,J wp 35773_2012

21.12.2002 passed by the respondent No'3' Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition' u vt el r er P.M .No. 47 2 1 obse rvinoasu nder: t ed in 2 11. t2 n m "It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the appeal' the petitioner has already deposited Rs' 2,00,000/-' In that view of the matter, pending further' orders, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for amount of on condition of petitioner paying further within a Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) period of four weeks from today"' PER E TH EC D u o r A.S Nos 2 a 7 1 26 ft s J2 a L2 2 a s r u r h "25. The next contention is that whether the Board is entitled to recover the arrears assessed basing on the back billing beyond six months? In this regard it 4 SN,J w _i57t3 _2012 is relevant to refer Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which read as under: "Where any difference or dispute arlses as .to whether uni-i"l"i referred to in subsection (1) is or is not iorr"rt, the matter shalt be decided' upon the Inspector; iipirition of either party, by an .Electrica.l iTia *n"r" the meter ias, in the opinion of Such frtpecti, ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the iinrur", or the electricat quantity contained in the tipii,iuring Such time, not exceeding six.m-onths' as iiZ' i"t", stlatl not, in the opinion of such Inspector' iiue Oee, correct; but save as aforesaid, the register oi tn" meter shall, in the absence of fraud' be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity: Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer uipiit to the Electricat Inspector under this sub' ZZZinn, he shall give to the other party not less than t.r", buyt I notiie of his intention so to do'"

26. A reading of the above provisions would clearly show that the assessment of the amount on account of defective meter is to be calculated not beyond six months. In the present case, the calculation was done for 57 months, which is contrary to the statutory provisions. This was rightly taken note by the Trial Court. In the determination even they found that meter is defective, it has no power to assess the amount beyond six months' Therefore, the claim of demand for the assessment year as confirmed by the appellate authority beyond six months suffers from lack of jurisdiction and hit by the prohibition contained under Section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act' To this 5 SN,J w_35773*2012 extent, the findings of the trial Court require confirmation. "

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment dated 13. 12.2O2Z passed in Appeal Suit No.1779 of 2000, in particular, paragraph Nos.25 and 26, contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition, since in the present case, the respondent authority had calculated back billing for a period of 1996 to 20.72.2001, whereas any back billing as per Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, shall not exceed six months. 6 6 f Indi n A 10i extracted hereu nder: "Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in subsection (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspectqr ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, 6 SN,J wp 35773 2012 have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or q.uantity: provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub_section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days I notice of his intention so to do.,,

8. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSpDCL, appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the Iegal position, however, submits that in the present case, since the inspection was done In the year 1996, the back billing was undertaken by the respondents for the period from 1996 to 20.12.2001 and to that effect, learned Standing Counsel places retiance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in particular, paragraph Nos.14 to 17, explaining the circumstances under which the back billing in the present case had been undertaken by the respondent authority. 9 Takino i nto consideratron: a) The submissions made by the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counset for TGSpDCL, appearing on behatf of the respondents |/ 7 SN,J wp 35773_2012 b) The view of this Court in its judgment dated L3.L2.2O22 passed in Appeat Suat No.1779 of 2OOO in particufar, paragraph Nos.25 and 26' (referred to and extracted above), c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and, d) Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 191O (referred to and extracted above) This Court opines that as per Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the assessment of the amount on account of defective meter is to be calculated not beyond six months and in the present case, admittedly as borne on record, the assessment of the amount on account of defective meter was done beyond six months as reflected in the impugned proceedings dated 22.09.2OL2 i.e., for the period from 16.O3.1996 to

16.10.2001. The writ petition is, therefore, altowed and the impugned proceedings of the respondent No,4 issued vide No.CG M (O)KZ / Knl / Comml/ F. HTMBN-5O5/ D. No. 5 966 I tZ, \ t .---.1 8 SN,J wp 35773 2012 dated 22.O9.2O12 is set aside. It is, however, observed that the respondents shall restrain the back bilting to six months and the amount paid by the petitioner in pursuance to the interim orders of this Court dated 2O.LL.2OL2 in W.p.M.p.No.45472 of ZOL2 shail be adjusted accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions. . if any, pending in the Writ petition shall also stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL' weJ'r'riloni iHe rweuiiii oni or FEBRUARY rwo rHousAND AND TWENTY FIVE //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. SREENIVASA REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Elec), Operation Sub Division, ( A.P.C.P D.C.L, Mettugadda, tr4aha bubnag ar- 509 001 The Divisional Engineer, ( Elec. oPerations )TGSPDCL, Mettugadda, Ivlahabubnagar- 509 001 ' iii;'3i,;;i;nd ins Ensineer, operations' TGSPDCL' Mettugadda' tvlahabubnaqar- 509 001 . The Chief General Manager, Operation' TGSPDC^L' Kurnool Zone' Kurnool' ffi ;iii;iMin"gins olr."ttoi.-iobCodl, Vidvut soudha' somaji Guda' Hvderabad- 500 004. ii'":,"bCI; 5ri. C vnru t RE DDY, Ad vocate t-oi-uql . 6ii! Ed i6 sCi. ru sneron-n-{n'Eo-oiiSc Fon TGSPDCL)[oPUCI Two CD CoPies ,) ? 4 E Ll 7 o BM KV ft"U. HIGH COURT DATED:12 10212025 ORDER WP.No.35773 of 2012 ( e o r,aE S Il l6 1 2t l\t\i ?0?5 1 ) A l I 5 pr.Ic$ i'0 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {r^q. t\x o\