IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Electricity Act imposes a statutory duty on the respondents to provide electricity connection to the petitioner within a specified period, and access to electricity should be construed as a human right.

ORDER :

Heard, Mr Erigi Ganesh, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr R.Vinod Reddy, the Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing power supply to the petitioner factory situated in Sy.No.468, 471, 472 of Narasappaguda village Kottur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as per his application, dated 28.02.2023 as wholly arbitrary illegal without jurisdiction and void and consequently direct the respondents to release power supply to the petitioner as requested in its application, dated 28.02.2023 forth with.

3. The case of the Petitioner in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, is as follows:

a) The petitioner has obtained lease of Ac.3-34 gts of land in Sy. No. 468, 471, 472 of Narasappaguda from the owners of the property on 12.11.2021. The petitioner wanted to establish a plastic recycling unit and started construction of the unit and applied for power supply connection of 350 KVA on 28.02.2023 by paying the necessary fees and the application for the same has been acknowledged.

b) However, the respondents have not so far responded to the request for supply of electricity. As per Section 43 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, it mandates that the distribution licensee shall on the application by the owner or occupier of any premises give supply of electricity to such premises within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply.

c) Upon enquiry with respondents’ officials for not considering the application, the petitioner was informed that the previous lease holder M/s Shyam Baba Ferrow Alloys Private Limited has not paid the arrears of Electricity Charges and other charges.

d) Thereupon, the petitioner made enquires with his lessors about the arrears and the petitioner was informed that they hold a total extent of Ac.11.04 gts of land in Sy.No.469, 471, 472 of Narsappaguda Village and they have constructed go-downs in some area and during 2010 they have leased out Ac.6.35 gts to M/s Shyambaba Ferrow Alloys private limited, for which power supply of 5250 KVBA was obtained under Service No. MBN-880.

e) However, M/s Shyambaba Ferrow Alloys private limited has closed its operations during 2015 and the power supply was disconnected on 07.12.2015. The factory has adjusted the security deposit and paid the balance arrears of about Rs.77 lakhs and after disconnection of the C.C. bill for the month of December-2015 was raised and the said amount of about Rs.60 lakhs was also paid. They have also informed that the power was de-rated to 70 KVA but power was not released but raised C.C. bills from January, 2016 to April, 2016.

f) On the facts stated by the lessors, the petitioner made enquires, got legal advice and confirmed that the alleged dues if any are barred under section 56 (1) and (2) of the Electricity Act. Moreover, the law on limitation based on Section 56 is settled by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2011 SCC online page 870 in para nos. 14 & 15.

g) Alongside, this court also in the recent judgment in W.P.No.30913 of 2022, dated 21.04.2023 while referring to Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act at para 14 held that, though the respondents have the authority to recover the dues of the previous owner from the existing owner or to deny fresh connection to the purchaser, it can be only be done with in the period of limitation prescribed under Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act. This Court also referred two earlier judgments of this Court in W.P.NO.21179 of 2012 and W.P.NO.11676 of 2007 for the said propositions.

h) Therefore, the action of the respondents in not giving power supply to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction and void. Hence this Writ Petition.

4. Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2, in brief, is as under:

a)