THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.29865 of 2014 Between:
Dated 15th December, 2014 Vijaya Iron Foundry Private Ltd., And …Petitioner The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: Sri O.Manohar Reddy The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in demanding the petitioner a sum of Rs.55,62,991/- pending adjudication of dispute by respondent No.5 as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner is a HT consumer of respondent No.1. It is its pleaded case that during the months of April and August, 2014 due to high voltage, its maximum demand has shot up, as a result of which, higher consumption than what was actually consumed was recorded by the meter. That the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of respondent No.5 under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for adjudication of the dispute. The grievance of the petitioner is that pending such adjudication, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are threatening coercive action for recovery of the disputed amount.
This Court at the admission stage has granted interim direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 not to disconnect the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection subject to its depositing Rs.15,00,000/- within two weeks. At the hearing, it has come out that the said condition was complied with by the petitioner.
Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that when a dispute relating to the correctness of the meter was pending for adjudication, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have no jurisdiction to demand the disputed amount and disconnect power supply for non-payment of such amount.
Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, however denied the claim of the petitioner that the dispute pertains to functioning of the meter.
It is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate this aspect as the dispute is pending before respondent No.5. It is, therefore, appropriate that respondent No.5 disposes of the meter dispute and passes a final order early. As the petitioner has already deposited Rs.15,00,000/-, interests of justice warrant that power supply is continued till adjudication of the dispute by respondent No.5.
For the above-mentioned reasons, respondent No.5 is directed to dispose of the complaint filed by the petitioner after hearing both the parties, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such disposal, respondent Nos.1 to 4 shall not disconnect power supply for non-payment of balance out of Rs.55,62,991/-.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.37304 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th December, 2014
VGB