SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(AP) 395

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
A.V. Sesha Sai, J.
M/s Sri Balaji Metal Crushers - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14245 of 2021
Decided On : 24-07-2021

Advocates Appeared:
M. Ravindra, Advocate, S. Satish Kumar, Advocate, Y. Nagi Reddy, Advocate, K. Naveen Kumar, Advocate

Disconnection of power supply without following the procedure prescribed under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and without a valid reason under Clause 17.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Power Supply is illegal and unsustainable.

Headnote:

ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 - SECTION 56 - GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF POWER SUPPLY - CLAUSE 17.2 - DISCONNECTION OF POWER SUPPLY - ILLEGALITY - ARBITRARINESS - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - POWER SUPPLY RESTORED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a proprietary firm with a mineral dealership license and quarry lease, challenged the disconnection of power supply to its firm by the respondents based on a letter from the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology alleging irregularities. The petitioner had filed a revision against the demand notice issued by the fourth respondent for payment of penalty and seignorage fee.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the impugned action of disconnecting the power supply was illegal and unsustainable as there was no default in payment of charges, the petitioner had a subsisting lease, and Clause 17.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Power Supply, which allows disconnection due to non-possession of a license, was not applicable in this case.

Issues: 1. Whether the disconnection of power supply to the petitioner's firm was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the General Terms and Conditions of Power Supply authorize the respondents to disconnect the power supply?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers authorities to disconnect power supply for default in payment after giving 15 clear days' notice. 2. Clause 17.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Power Supply allows disconnection due to non-possession of a license or permission required to run a business or industry. 3. In this case, there was no default in payment of charges, the petitioner had a subsisting lease, and Clause 17.2 was not applicable as the conduct of the business did not become unlawful due to failure to obtain or continue a license.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to restore power supply to the petitioner's firm forthwith. However, the order did not prevent the mining authorities from taking action as per law.

JUDGMENT

A V Sesha Sai, J. - Heard Sri M.Ravindra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Satish Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Energy, Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, and Sri K.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Commerce and Industries, appearing for the respondents, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

2. In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in disconnecting the power supply to the petitioner-firm on the basis of the letter of the fourth respondent herein.

3. According to the petitioner, it is a proprietary firm having obtained the mineral dealership licence certificate bearing No.1450/ADL/2017 from the Department of Mines and Geology for the purpose of storing, selling and trading of road metal and building stone mineral and the same is valid till 31.05.2022. It is stated that the petitioner herein also possesses quarry lease for road metal and building stone in respect of an extent of 1.0 hectare in Sy.No.622 of Melavoi Village, Madakasira Mandal, Anantapur District and that the said lease came to be granted by the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Kurnool vide proceedings No.4018/Q4/2010, dated 21.01.2011. It is further stated that the said quarry lease is still subsisting. The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Anantapur-fourth respondent herein issued a show cause notice bearing No.2119/Q1/RM/2010, dated 10.03.2020, calling upon the petitioner herein to show cause as to why action should not be taken while pointing out certain alleged irregularities. Subsequently, fourth respondent herein issued a demand notice bearing No.2119/QL/RM/2010, dated 07.04.2020, and demanded to pay a sum of Rs.8,13,13,085/- towards penalty amount along with the normal seignorage fee and the market value of the mineral shown in the said demand notice. Aggrieved by the said demand, dated 07.04.2020, petitioner herein filed a revision before the State Government under Rule 35-A of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity, 'the Rules') on 03.07.2017 and, according to the learned counsel, the said revision is pending consideration before the State Government.

4. While things being so, obviously, on the basis of the said action initiated under the provisions of the Rules, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Anantapur-fourth respondent herein, vide letter No.1450/ADL/2017, dated 14.06.2021, made a request to the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APSPDCL, Anantapur-second respondent herein to disconnect the power connection provided to the petitioner-firm. Obviously, as a sequel to the said letter, dated 14.06.2021, second respondent herein, while referring to the above mentioned request made by the fourth respondent, informed the petitioner herein that supply of power would be disconnected and the APSPDCL would not hold any responsibility for any damages and also informed that the petitioner herein may contact the fourth respondent in the event of there being any objections. According to the petitioner, disconnection had been effected by the respondents 2 and 3 in an illegal manner.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned action, which culminated in disconnection of the power supply to the petitioner-firm, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violaive of the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that, neither the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 nor the Clauses in the General Terms and Conditions of power supply do authorise or empower the respondents herein to resort to the impugned action. In elaboration, it is further maintained by the learned counsel that the impugned action is also in contravention of the provisions of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Clauses 17.1 and 17.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Power Supply.

6. On the contrary, stren

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top