IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the legality of back-billing under the Electricity Act, affirming the Society's standing to contest the notice despite ongoing disputes regarding its office bearers.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

Petitioner is a registered Society established with an intention to promote / protect the interests of owners, who purchased plots in HMDA layout in Yapral namely, M/s Golf Pride Homes, commencing from 2010. The grievance of petitioner is in relation to the demand made by the respondent authorities who have allegedly conducted an inspection in the premises of M/s Golf Pride Homes, at the behest of the unofficial respondent, who was none other than the Ex-Secretary of the Society.

It is stated that Petitioner Society is beneficiary of two service connections bearing SC No. 1304 19 02355 and SC No. 23060215. Service Connection which is the subject matter is SC No. 1304 19 02355. As per the 4th respondent, the said connection falls under Category LT-III and was originally issued in the name of the builder M/s Swarnandhra Housing Projects (Beneficiary-I). In relation to the above Service Connection, the 4th respondent is alleged to have conducted an inspection and found that there were certain illegalities in the manner in which the said connections were to be put to usage and also that the Society has duly switching between two service connections i.e., Category-III to Category-ll. It is also alleged that energy was illegally consumed during the period from 08.03.2007 to 31.05.2022 under a wrong category, as a result of which the Corporation suffered losses to the tune of Rs. 5,29,366/- (Rupees Five Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Six Rupees). Hence, assessment-cum-back-billing notice was issued by the 2nd respondent vide Lr. ADE/OP/SAINIKPURI/MATS/D.No. 725/22-23, dated 25.06.2022. The complaint of petitioner is that the alleged inspection conducted by the 4th respondent was not done in the presence of any of the members of the Society and the consequential issuance of assessment notice was also not within the knowledge of petitioner Society or its members as the assessment notice was sent to M/s Swarnandra Housing Projects, an entity which is now defunct and is not in operation anymore. Further, the assessment notice and its intimation was not served on the proper address, i.e. on petitioner Society, thereby depriving their right of exercising legal remedies in time. However, on receiving the information, petitioner approached unsuccessfully the appellate authority – 7th respondent Superintending Engineer, Habsiguda, duly depositing Rs.1,65,000/- but however, the respondent authorities have not issued any proper acknowledgment. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner Society is stated to have approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which rejected the Application vide order dated 30.06.2023, on the ground that SOP No. 06 of 2021 is pending on the file of the PDJ-Cum-Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri District. Since the very affairs of the Society were in dispute, the forum did not venture any further in adjudicating the dispute which involved fixing the liability of payment of amounts, in relation to the assessment for back billing. Consequently, Appeal No. 23 of 2023 was preferred before the Ombudsman - 11th respondent, who vide Award dated 10.08.2023, rejected the Appeal, directed the appellants before it to pay the balance amount in 12 monthly equal instalments. The said order is in challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner Society Sri R. Anurag submits that the respondent authorities, right from inception of proceedings, have proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the facts. Though it has been time and again contended before the authorities that connections were not misused and not put to commercial purpose by the Petitioner society, respondent authorities failed to appreciate the same, thereby making the entire process a lopsided and an empty formality. According to the learned counsel, when the 4th respondent himself admitted that inspection report contained errors and it was a mistake on his part, fixing the liability onto the Society would am