THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.35603 of 2014 Dated:24.11.2014 Between:
A.Vani, W/o M.Rajendra Prasad ….Petitioner And:
The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, reptd by its Managing Director and five others.
… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Ravinder Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri O.Manoher Reddy The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed feeling aggrieved by order, dated 29.05.2014, in Appeal No.110 of 2013, of the Vidyuth Ombudsman to the extent he has directed the respondents to treat the petitioner’s Service Connection as belonging to LT Temporary Category till the Occupancy Certificate is produced, recalculate the consumption charges from the date of release of supply and adjust the excess amount collected from the petitioner, if any, in her future bills.
A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ombudsman would show that he has taken a correct view to the extent of holding that the respondents have no jurisdiction to levy three times the normal charges on the ground that the consumers failed to secure Occupancy Certificates. Indeed, this view taken by the Ombudsman is in conformity with the view taken by this Court by order, dated 05.11.2014, in Writ Petition No.32906 of 2014. However, the Ombudsman has gone further and held that in the absence of Occupancy Certificate, the petitioner’s Service Connection shall be treated as temporary Service Connection.
In my opinion, such a view cannot be sustained for the reason that when law requires the consumers to obtain Occupancy Certificates, the licensee cannot extend Service Connection, either temporary or regular, in the absence of such Occupancy Certificates. Therefore, release of electricity supply cannot be regularised by treating such supply as temporary.
In the above-mentioned order, this Court while holding that the respondents are not entitled to recover additional consumption charges over and above the prescribed tariff, however, made the following observations:
“Before closing this case, this Court feels it imperative to observe that the petitioner cannot violate law and insist on the power distribution licensee to continue to supply power to it without obtaining Occupancy Certificate, which, admittedly, is a mandatory requirement under Section 455 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. The respondents are, therefore, left free to call upon the petitioner to produce the Occupancy Certificate in accordance with the said provision within a stipulated time. If the petitioner fails to produce such certificate, they shall be free to disconnect the power supply to him and terminate the power supply agreement. The respondents are also left free to refuse release of power supply to other similarly situated consumers if they fail to produce Occupancy Certificates within a stipulated time.”
In my opinion, the respondents are well within their right to insist on the petitioner to produce Occupancy Certificate within a reasonable time and terminate the agreement, in the event, she fails to produce such Occupancy Certificate.
The impugned order of the Ombudsman is, accordingly, modified by holding that the respondents are not entitled to collect additional consumption charges in excess of the prescribed tariff and such charges already collected shall be adjusted in the future bills. The respondents are also left free to issue notice to the petitioner calling upon her to produce the Occupancy Certificate and terminate the agreement if such certificate is not produced within the stipulated time.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.44540 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
24th November, 2014 DR