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

2024 Supreme(AP) 1526

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Sunkara Krishna Murthy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondent
WP No.24727 of 2023
Decided on : 15-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : (Ms.) Prasannala Kancharla
For the Respondent: Government Pleader for Energy, Devalaraju Anil Kumar and V.R. Reddy Kovvuri (SC for APEPDCL)

Disconnection of electricity service without notice violates principles of natural justice, necessitating due process in property disputes under Article 226.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Electricity Act - Writ petition for restoration of disconnection - Petitioner claims unlawful disconnection without prior notice, demanding restoration and invoking rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 - Court found procedural irregularity in disconnection and prescribed due process for petitioner's claims - Directions issued to restore connection and conduct a fresh hearing concerning disputed ownership. (Paras 1, 5, 7, 8)

(B) Principles of natural justice - The court emphasized that parties must be afforded a fair opportunity to present their cases, directly addressing the need for a personal hearing regarding the service connection dispute. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the disconnection of his electricity service based on a civil dispute concerning property ownership with another party, who sought to claim rights over the same property. The petitioner had previously secured a temporary injunction to retain possession.

Findings of Court:
The court directed a proper examination of the petitioner's application, mandated a personal hearing involving both parties, and provided statutory guidelines for restoring the electricity service.

Issues: Whether the disconnection was lawful without notice and the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in resolving ownership disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the requirement that any action affecting property and service rights must be conducted with due process, including notifications and hearings, to respect the rights implicated under the Constitution.

Result: Writ petition disposed with directions for a fresh consideration of the application.

Table of Content
1. writ petition under article 226 for power supply disconnection (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. court's decision to direct fresh application and personal hearing (Para 2 , 7)
3. parties' arguments regarding title and service connection (Para 5 , 6)
4. order for restoration of service connection and closure of petition (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :

    "pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent to disconnecting the power supply to the house of the petitioner vide Service Connection No.6423477222554 without issuing any prior notice it is contrary to Electricity Act, and also without following due course of law, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violation of Principles of natural justice consequently direct the 4th respondent to restore the power supply to the petitioner's house and pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to pass..."

2. Heard learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the Premises Bearing D.No.21-10-48/1, 2nd line, Srinagar Colony, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada. While so, respondent No.5 is also claiming the title over the said property under the guise of a will. To sort out little dispute, the petitioner filed an injunction suit against the respondent No.5 vide OS No.940 of 2021, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Wherein, the Court below was pleased to grant a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner operates against respondent No.5. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to continue his possession over the subject property. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his application to the respondent-authorities for grant of electricity service connection. Accordingly, he was granted the connection vide Bearing No.6423477222554 in his favour.

4. He further submitted that, the petitioner also sought to mutate his name in respect of Service Connection No.6423477222554, pursuant to the title deeds held in his favour and also pursuant to the order of the Court below dated 24.06.2021 vide OS No.940 of 2021. While things stood thus, in view of the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5, the respondent-authorities, without issuing any notice and without considering the petitioner's notice dated 25.06.2022, issued the impugned proceedings dated 17.08.2022, rejecting the request of the petitioner for change of name by stating that, the door was under lock and key consecutively for three (03) times when they visited the house and the meter was not able to scan with IRDA port for reading meter. Hence, filed the present writ petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, submits that, by considering the application of the petitioner, the respondent-authorities tried to ascertain the electricity service connection status. But, as the door was under lock and key continuously for three (03) visits, the authorities are unable to read the meter, accordingly, the meter was stopped as per APERC norms.

6. Learned Counsel for respondent No.5 also submits that, respondent No.5 is the beneficiary under the registered Will in respect of subject property said to have been executed by the original property holder by name Smt. Dharmamba. Pursuant to his title deeds, he made application for transfer of electricity service connection and the same was mutated in favour of respondent No.5. Therefore, for any change of name in respect of electricity service connection, he should be provided with an opportunity of personal hearing by the responden

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