High Court · 2025

The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum l, TSNPDCL Warangal Challa Godown, Rep by its Proprietor Sri Challa.Srinivas. Reddy' S/o Ram iil;, -rg; Mrloi'oi". Business, Nekkonda Warangal' ...RESPONDENTS 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 a wrtt, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of ce(iorari by callrng for the records and quash the orders dated 29-6-2018 in cG No 94 of 2018 passed by the learned 1st Respondent as arbitrary illegal' unjust and contrary to the law and facts of the case' I {, IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Perition 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 stay theoperationoftheordersofthelearnedlstrespondentdated2g.6.20,lSinCG No 94 of 2018. I b t, IA NO: 20F 2018 Between: Challa Godown, Rep by its Proprietor Sri Challa-srinivas leddy' S/o' Ram Hffi;, -";; M ijoi,'oic Busi riess, Nekkonda Wa rans a ..'PETITIONEF/ TESPONDENT No'4 & AND 1 2 The Assistant Engineer, Operation/Nekkonda' The Assistant Divisional Engineer, /Op/Nekkonda The Assistant Accounts Officer, /ERO/Narsampet 3 4. The Divisional Engineer, /Operation/Narsampet'

5. The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum l' TSNPD() - Warangal ...RESPONt)l :NTS/PETITIONERS ...RESPONDET TS'RESPONDENTS PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecirumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in w P No 35169 ol 2o1I\ datd 01-10-2018 in the interest of justice and fair-play counsel for the Petitioner : sRl A.cHANDRA SHAKER ( s(; FoR TSNPDCL) Counsel for the ResPondent No.1 : Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KIJ t'lAR -- The Court made the following: ORDER +. + t f + t 6 f *, I 6 I 6 n.(1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No.35169 of 2O18 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed calling for the records and seeking to quash the order dated 29.06.2018 in CG No'94 of 2018 passed bY 1't resPondent.

2. Heard Sri A.Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel for TSNPDCL for petitioners and Sri Gadi Fraveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record'

3. The brief lacts of the case are that petitioners entered into an agreement dated O8.O4.201 I to supply electricity under Category-lll to M/s. Venkata Sai Brick Industr5r, Nekkonda Vitlage (Service No. 2112-0248A), in the name of Smt' A' Saritha. Hou'ever, the 2"'r respondeirt was found using the electricity unauthorizedlv lor commercial godowns, which was not permitted under the sanctioned category' Following inspection, a provisional assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was issued on l3'O2'2O17 lor lor 4 vears (from LO.O2'20L3 to O9'O2'2Ol7l' Rs.15,33,996 I Though no timel-r' replv u'as given, the 2"d respondent later 2 r{8xJ w.P. No.351690f2018 admitted unauthorized use and requested reas lessment. After further inspections, a final assessment .r 1s issued on

18.lO.2Ol7 for Rs.8,67,640/-, confirming uri uthorized use. The 2'a respondent frled an appeal before the Superintending Engineer (Appeal No. 675 of 20 18) and the sarre was rejected rride order dated 05.03,2018. Aggrieved by tht, same, he then filed Complaint No. 94 of 2Ol8 before the Consr.mer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), which, on 29.Ot.ZOt8, wrongly reduced the assessment period to 2 years b_v ir rplying Section 56(2) which deals with regular billing, not une urthorized use. The petitioners submit that CGRF had no aurhc rity to alter an assessment made under Section 126, and ther : is no appeal forum for the licensee. Hence, the petitioners h: r no alternative remedy has filed this Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 liled counter affidavit stating that the writ petition is not mairr ainable in law as petitioners has an effective alternative remedy. The provisional assessment of 18,67 ,640 I - ir; ;ued against Consumer Service No.211202488 is arbitrarv an: baseless. It is stated that they own only one godou,n out of st:vt: al in the area, and it uses minimal electricitv, mainl_r, relving rr I a generator. ( i (,1 3 BKJ w.P. No.35169 or 20rB The adjacent brick industry, M/s. Venkata Sai Brick Indushies, owned by Smt. A. Saritha, is the actual consumer of the power, but the entire connected load was wrongly attributed to his godown during an inspection on 24.O8.2OL7. It is further stated that regular departmental inspections over the years have never found any misuse of electricity. The name "Challa Godowns" is only a local identifier and not a registered lirm. His godown is used solely for storing food grains for the Food Corporation of India, which does not require electricity. Aggrieved by the erroneous assessment, he liled C.G.No.94 of 2Ol8 before the 1"t Respondent, who, after due consideration, rightly held that recovery of electricitv dues be,r'ond two years without prior notice is barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2O03, and directed reassessment limited to two years before the inspection. The said order is legal, proper, and does not suffer from any illegality or irregularit\', rvarranting no interference by this Court.

5. ln Southern Electricitg Supplg Co. of Orissa Ltd. a, Srl Seetarann Rice Millr, this Court has considered the scope 'zorz 121 scc toa F 4 NB(J w-P. No.35169 of 2018 of the Explanation to Section 126 of the 2OO3 ,\:t. While dealing with the issue, it has been lajd down at para 2I u,hich reads as under: "29. Thus, it would be clear thar tht, 'unauthorised use of electricity" under Sectrot 2OO3 Act deals with cases of unauthorised usc. absence of intention. These cases woulcl c different from cases where there is dishonest at electricity by any of the methods enlisted unde r of the 2OO3 Act. A clear example would L consumer has used excessive load as againsr t load sirnpliciter and ttrere is violation of tht conditions of supply; then, the case would fall ur 126 of the 2003 Act. On the other hand. wherc r by any of the means and methods as spc.) Sections 135(a) to 135(e) of the 2OO3 Act, has enerry with dishonest intention and without arr like providing for a direct connection bv c in stalled meter, the case would tall under Seirr, r Act. expressron 126 of rhc even rn the rrtarnly be straction of lectxrn 135 : where a re installed te rms and ler Section consumer, fied under abstracted horisation, rssing the t 35 of rhe

6. A perusal of the material on record shor s that the 2"d respondent's use of electricity for the godou.rl s minimal and primarily supported by a generator. The provisi ; la assessment issued by the petitioners appears to havc I een based on incorrect assumptions, attributing the entire co rnected load to the 2"a respondent's godown without proper eviclence. This Court hnds that the limitation prescribed under iection 56(21 ot the Electricity Act, 2003, which restricts recor.t.r r of arrears to a period of two years for regular billing, is nr r applicable to assessments made under Section 126 of thc \ct relating to ..--- 5 XBKJ W.P. t{o.35159 of 2018 unauthorized use of electricity. Section 126 empowers the Iicensee to recover charges for such unauthorized use beyond the two-year limitation period. It may be noted that the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum erred in reducing the assessment period to two years by applying Section 56(2), thereby illegally restricting the recovery rights of the petitioners. Therefore, the provisional assessment covering four years as made by the petitioners is valid and recoverable. The impugned order is liable to be set aside

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 29.06.2018 in CG No. 94 of 2O 18 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if an-v pending, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' SINGH, on this ,BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR Witness THE HON THURSDAY, THE THINTV TINST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSANO AND TWENW FIVE . SRINIVASA REDDY STANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, DCL Warangal

1. The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum l' TS 2.OneCCtoSRIA.CHANDRASHAKER,(SCFoRTSNPDCL).[oPUc] 3. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' Advocate lOPUCl 4. Two CD CoPies. o esr S ;\ 5 * f + I I HIGH COURT DATED:31 t0712025 ORDER WP.No.35169 of 2018 :r- ),J1 F-_:.. ''^ -1. [.: L W i; ..: \'. \/i 'a* ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS tl ,rt\ I I I l i i I I I t I I t t G + * + + t {. f a <, + f s,