JUDGMENT

K Lakshman, J. - Assailing the Sanction Memo No.DEE/OP/SRNR/COMML/FCAP/D.NO.2489/19-20, dated 20.02.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent according approval for sanction for an estimate of Rs.2,70,799.31 ps., treating the petitioner's application for service connection as nondomestic purpose instead of domestic purpose for providing supply of power to Plot No.24A in Sy.No.196, Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Pedda Amberpet Municipality in terms of Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and not providing electricity supply even after lapse of more than a year from the date of making application, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

2. Heard Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.24A in Sy.No.196, Kuntloor village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Pedda Amberpet Municipality, the petitioner has submitted an application dated 29.05.2019 to the respondent authorities for providing Service Connection for 'construction purpose' by paying requisite fee. The 3rd respondent vide Memo dated 20.02.2020 informed the petitioner that the service connection has been approved subject to payment of Rs.2,70,799.31ps., treating the petitioner's application as non-domestic purpose.

4. Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said memo dated 20.02.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent informing the petitioner about the sanction estimate and requesting the petitioner to pay the said amount of Rs.2,70,799.31ps. by treating the application submitted by the petitioner as non-domestic is illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulations. He would further submit that the petitioner has submitted an application for construction of a house and it will fall under domestic category, but not under non-domestic category as claimed by the respondent authorities. According to him, as per Section 46 of the Electricity Act, the State Commission may, by regulations, authorize a distribution licensee to charge from a person requiring a supply of electricity in pursuance of Section 43 of the Electricity Act any expenses reasonably incurred in providing any electric line or electrical plant used for the expenditure purpose of giving that supply. He would further submit that in exercise of the said powers, the Sate Commission has issued Regulation No.4 of 2013 which was notified in the Gazette on 29.07.2013.

5. As per Regulation No.4 of 2013, the respondent authorities have no right to claim service line charges and also development charges from the petitioner. He has relied upon Clauses - 5 to 8 of the said Regulation No.4 of 2013 dated 29.07.2013. With the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned memo dated 20.02.2020 is arbitrary and illegal, and sought to set aside the same with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to provide domestic service connection free of cost and supply power to the petitioner's plot.

6. The 4th respondent filed counter denying the contentions raised by the petitioner.

7. Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has submitted an application dated 29.05.2019 for providing service connection for the purpose of construction of house. As per existing tariff rules, construction of house falls under in Category-II i.e. non-domestic category. He would further submit that considering the said application of the petitioner, an estimate was made for Rs.2,70,799.31ps. and sanction was approved. The respondents have received only one application in the entire lay out consisting of several plots. There is no other application in respect of the area/layout in which the petitioner has submitted application. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS) and also existing Tariff Ru