HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28028 of 2014 Date:24.12.2014 Between:
P.Ganesh Reddy, S/o P.Veera Basantha Reddy and another.
. Petitioners And:
The Telangana State Central Power Distribution Company Limited, reptd by its Superintending Engineer, Hyderabad and five others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt Pushpinder Kaur Counsel for the Respondents: Sri O.Manoher Reddy The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The petitioners have three Service Connections. Service Connection bearing No.511900428 was released under LT Category-II for running of a poultry, Service Connection bearing No.331900524 was released under Category-I for agricultural purpose and Service Connection bearing No.331900037 was released for domestic purpose under Category-I.
The petitioners' Service Connection relating to category-II (S.C.No.511900428) was inspected by the Assistant Engineer, SD-II, DPE, Hyderabad North on 23.04.2010 and based on the said inspection, the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation), Ibrahimpatnam, APCDPDL has issued provisional assessment notice, vide letter No.ADE/Op/SD/IBP/D.No.2193/10-11, dated 06.01.2011, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was found bypassing the meter by connecting the outgoing phase and neutral wires of the meter directly to the incoming phase and neutral respectively with dishonest intention and deliberately indulged in theft of energy, thereby violating the terms and conditions of supply of respondent No.1. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.52,955/- was assessed as the provisional assessment amount. Petitioner No.1 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.26,477.50 paise representing 50% of the provisional assessment amount, if he intents to seek restoration of power supply and pay the balance 50% amount in instalments pending adjudication of his civil liability under Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'). Petitioner No.1 was also called upon to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards the compounding fee for closure of the criminal case as first offence. As the petitioners have not paid 50% of the provisional assessment amount, the power supply, which was disconnected following the inspection on 23.04.2010, was not restored till July 2014; and that on receipt of 50% of provisional assessment amount from the petitioners, the power supply was restored. However, the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation), TSSPDCL, Yacharam, Ranga Reddy District has issued disconnection letters, dated 22.08.2014, in respect of all three Service Connections, i.e., for non-payment of Rs.53,155/- in respect of Service Connection No.511900428, Rs.4,278/- in respect of Service Connection No.331900037, and Rs.2,910/- in respect of Service Connection No.331900524. As the petitioners have not paid these amounts, the power supply was disconnected for all the three Service Connections in August, 2014. Feeling aggrieved by the disconnection of the power supply, the petitioners filed the Writ Petition.
Though a counter-affidavit is stated to have been filed today, the same has not been placed on record so far. However, Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Central Power Distribution Company Limited, has submitted that the power supply was disconnected for non-payment of the sum of Rs.14,771/-, representing the minimum charges during disconnection period, in respect of Service Connection No.511900428 and that in respect of the other two Service Connections, the petitioners are liable to pay Rs.2,910/- towards regular consumption charges for Service Connection No. 331900524 and Rs.4,278/- in respect of Service Connection No. 331900037. Learned counsel further submitted that as the petitioners have not paid the balance 50% of the provisional assessment amount, the dispute has not been referred to the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Act.
With regard to the minimum charges and the current consumption charges, I am of the opinion that the petitioners cannot absolve themselves from payment of the said charges. Due to the alleged theft of electricity, the power supply was disconnected in the year 2010 and it remained under disconnection for more than four years till the power supply was restored after payment of 50% of the provisional assessment amount by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners cannot avoid payment of the minimum charges during the disconnection period as per the extant terms and conditions of supply of respondent No.1.
With regard to the current consumption charges also, in respect of the other two Service Connections, the petitioners cannot avoid the liability in law.
Smt Pushpender Kaur, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that her clients are in dire financial crises and that they are not in a position to pay the above-mentioned amounts in one lump sum.
Considering this submission of the learned counsel, the petitioners are permitted to pay these amounts in three equal monthly instalments and the first instalment is payable on or before 01.01.2015. On payment of the first instalment, the respondents shall restore the power supply to all the three Service Connections. The petitioners are permitted to pay the balance amount in two equal monthly instalments on 01.02.2015 and 01.03.2015. In default of payment of the subsequent two instalments, the respondents are entitled to disconnect the power supply to all the three Service Connections.
As regards the payment of balance 50% of the provisional assessment amount, as petitioner No.1's civil liability is yet to be adjudicated, I find it appropriate to direct the respondents not to recover the same pending adjudication of his civil liability. The respondents are directed to refer the dispute to the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Act for adjudication of petitioner No.1's civil liability within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Since the petitioners have paid the compounding fee, the respondents are directed to close the criminal case, if not already done, registered against the petitioners.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.35097 and 35098 of 2014 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous.
24th December 2014 DR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY