This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that the
respondents have been demanding electricity consumption
charges at three times the normal electricity charges only on the
ground that the petitioner did not secure Occupancy Certificate
from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad.
In my opinion, so long as respondent No.1, who is a
licensee under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, does
not amend its supply regulations/conditions in tune with the
Government policy qua levy and collection of tariff higher than
that prescribed under its Regulations, such levy cannot be
legally sustained. Being a licensee, it cannot charge its
consumers higher tariff than what is prescribed by the tariff
regulations, approved by the Regulatory Commission.
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
K.Mahender, S/o Balaiah..... Petitioner
Vs
The Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, reptd by its
Managing Director and three others......Respondents
Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Writ Petition No.32906 of 2014
Date:05.11.2014
Citation;AIR 2015 NOC234(HYD)
This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that the
respondents have been demanding electricity consumption
charges at three times the normal electricity charges only on the
ground that the petitioner did not secure Occupancy Certificate
from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad.
At the hearing, Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for the Telangana Southern Power Distribution
Company Limited (for short the Company), in all fairness,
stated that there is no condition under the terms and conditions
of supply of the Company, under which power supply was
released and being continued to the petitioner, for levying the
consumption charges in excess of the charges prescribed for the
category of supply under which the Service Connection was
sanctioned to the petitioner except for theft of energy and other
malpractices. He has, however, stated that the Government of
Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.86, Municipal Administration
and Urban Development (M) Department, dated 03.03.2006,
whereunder obtaining of Occupancy Certificate by every owner
of the building is made mandatory and that the functional
agencies dealing with electric power, water supply, drainage
and sewerage shall not give regular connections to the building,
unless such Occupancy Certificate is produced or alternatively,
may charge three times the rate in the absence of Occupancy
Certificate. He has further stated that the said G.O. was replaced
with G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.04.2002, and that Clause-26 of
the said G.O. also reiterated the same position.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents referred to
and relied upon Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for
short the Act) in support of the action of the respondents in
collecting higher tariff.
Section 108 of the Act reads as under:
(1) In the discharge of its functions, the State
Commission shall be guided by such directions
in matters of policy involving public interest as
the State Government may give to it in writing.
(2) If any question arises as to whether any such
direction relates to a matter of policy involving
public interest, the decision of the State
Government thereon shall be final.
While undoubtedly the policy directions issued by the
Government guide the State Electricity Regulatory Commission,
it is not the pleaded case of the respondents that while
approving the tariffs, the State Regulatory Commission has
prescribed higher tariff for the consumers who fail to produce
Occupancy Certificates.
In my opinion, so long as respondent No.1, who is a
licensee under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, does
not amend its supply regulations/conditions in tune with the
Government policy qua levy and collection of tariff higher than
that prescribed under its Regulations, such levy cannot be
legally sustained. Being a licensee, it cannot charge its
consumers higher tariff than what is prescribed by the tariff
regulations, approved by the Regulatory Commission.
In this view of the matter, demand and collection of
electricity consumption charges at three times the normal
charges from the petitioner cannot be sustained and the same is
declared as illegal. The respondents are directed to adjust the
excess tariff, if any, collected so far, from the petitioner's future
C.C. bills.
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.
Subject to the above directions and observations, the Writ
Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, WPMP.Nos.41149 and 41150 of 2014, filed
by the petitioner for interim relief, are disposed of as
infructuous.
______________________
(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)
05th November 2014
Print Page
respondents have been demanding electricity consumption
charges at three times the normal electricity charges only on the
ground that the petitioner did not secure Occupancy Certificate
from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad.
In my opinion, so long as respondent No.1, who is a
licensee under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, does
not amend its supply regulations/conditions in tune with the
Government policy qua levy and collection of tariff higher than
that prescribed under its Regulations, such levy cannot be
legally sustained. Being a licensee, it cannot charge its
consumers higher tariff than what is prescribed by the tariff
regulations, approved by the Regulatory Commission.
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
K.Mahender, S/o Balaiah..... Petitioner
Vs
The Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, reptd by its
Managing Director and three others......Respondents
Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Writ Petition No.32906 of 2014
Date:05.11.2014
Citation;AIR 2015 NOC234(HYD)
This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that the
respondents have been demanding electricity consumption
charges at three times the normal electricity charges only on the
ground that the petitioner did not secure Occupancy Certificate
from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad.
At the hearing, Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for the Telangana Southern Power Distribution
Company Limited (for short the Company), in all fairness,
stated that there is no condition under the terms and conditions
of supply of the Company, under which power supply was
released and being continued to the petitioner, for levying the
consumption charges in excess of the charges prescribed for the
category of supply under which the Service Connection was
sanctioned to the petitioner except for theft of energy and other
malpractices. He has, however, stated that the Government of
Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.86, Municipal Administration
and Urban Development (M) Department, dated 03.03.2006,
whereunder obtaining of Occupancy Certificate by every owner
of the building is made mandatory and that the functional
agencies dealing with electric power, water supply, drainage
and sewerage shall not give regular connections to the building,
unless such Occupancy Certificate is produced or alternatively,
may charge three times the rate in the absence of Occupancy
Certificate. He has further stated that the said G.O. was replaced
with G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.04.2002, and that Clause-26 of
the said G.O. also reiterated the same position.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents referred to
and relied upon Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for
short the Act) in support of the action of the respondents in
collecting higher tariff.
Section 108 of the Act reads as under:
(1) In the discharge of its functions, the State
Commission shall be guided by such directions
in matters of policy involving public interest as
the State Government may give to it in writing.
(2) If any question arises as to whether any such
direction relates to a matter of policy involving
public interest, the decision of the State
Government thereon shall be final.
While undoubtedly the policy directions issued by the
Government guide the State Electricity Regulatory Commission,
it is not the pleaded case of the respondents that while
approving the tariffs, the State Regulatory Commission has
prescribed higher tariff for the consumers who fail to produce
Occupancy Certificates.
In my opinion, so long as respondent No.1, who is a
licensee under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, does
not amend its supply regulations/conditions in tune with the
Government policy qua levy and collection of tariff higher than
that prescribed under its Regulations, such levy cannot be
legally sustained. Being a licensee, it cannot charge its
consumers higher tariff than what is prescribed by the tariff
regulations, approved by the Regulatory Commission.
In this view of the matter, demand and collection of
electricity consumption charges at three times the normal
charges from the petitioner cannot be sustained and the same is
declared as illegal. The respondents are directed to adjust the
excess tariff, if any, collected so far, from the petitioner's future
C.C. bills.
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.
Subject to the above directions and observations, the Writ
Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, WPMP.Nos.41149 and 41150 of 2014, filed
by the petitioner for interim relief, are disposed of as
infructuous.
______________________
(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)
05th November 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment