Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Prathima Infrastructure Limited, Rep. by Managing Director – Appellant
Versus
Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director – Respondent
ORDER :
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
Aggrieved by the proceedings of the 3rd respondent - Divisional Engineer dated 31.07.2019, assessment notice dated 25.06.2019 issued by the 4th respondent – Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation) and the power consumption bill dated 26.07.2019 issued by the 6th respondent – Senior Accounts Officer in respect of HT Service Connection No. BKM130 (KMM 1030), insofar as the said proceedings relate to changing the tariff category from HT-II to HT-VII and levying back-billing charges as arrears with retrospective effect, petitioner is before this Court.
2. Petitioner M/s Prathima Infrastructure Limited - a company engaged in infrastructure and allied activities is stated to have made an Application in September, 2017 to respondents for supply of electricity at High Tension with a Contracted Maximum Demand of 750 KVA at Voddu Ramavaram Village, Mulakalapally Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The said Application was made specifically for the purpose of establishment of a site office and factory, clearly mentioning details of machinery proposed to be installed and operated, namely machinery required for production of concrete through a batching plant and
The court ruled that unsubstantiated unilateral reclassification of electricity tariff violates natural justice and must be based on reliable evidence.
Unilateral reclassification of electricity supply service and back billing without adherence to natural justice violates established principles, rendering such demands unlawful and unsustainable.
The calculation sheet provided to the petitioner cannot be treated as an order of assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The demand raised in the form of the calculation sheet is ....
Electricity consumption exceeding sanctioned load constitutes unauthorized use, justifying charges without requiring a reclassification application from the consumer under applicable tariff provision....
(1) Rule of convenience – Rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is not a rule of law rather a rule of convenience.(2) Concurrent Jurisdiction – Consumer forum has concurrent jurisdiction.(3) Juris....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
