Electricity consumption exceeding sanctioned load constitutes unauthorized use, justifying charges without requiring a reclassification application from the consumer under applicable tariff provisions.

ORDER :

1. The notice issued by the 5th respondent for imposing Development Charges, dated 29.11.2024, in respect of Service Connection No.55316-01184, Category LT3-INDUSTRY of 55316-Bompally (Dist), is impugned in this Writ Petition. Petitioner challenges classification of the existing LT connection as HT connection. They seek a consequential direction to regularize the alleged additional connected load by paying Service Line Charges, Development Charges and Security Deposit amounting to Rs.29,800/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred only).

2. The brief case is that petitioner firm is a rice mill, obtained Service Connection No.55316-01184 in October 2021 under Category LT3 with an approved connected load of 99 LP. In 2022, due to an increase in work and operational requirements of the rice mill, they applied for enhancement of the connected load to 124.5 LP; enhanced load was sanctioned and was being utilized by petitioner till December 2024. Subsequently, due to changes in Government policy whereby the compulsory supply of rice was withdrawn, business of petitioner was severely affected. As a result, petitioner’s consumption load drastically reduced from 124 LP and as on the date of the affidavit, they were using only 64 LP consumption load for the purpose of carrying out job works.

2.1. While so, Respondent No.5 conducted an inspection on 29.11.2024 and thereafter issued the impugned letter observing that though the Contracted Load was below the approved 124.0 LP, the Connected Load as per inspection was found to be 144.5 HP and there was an excess connected load of 21.0 HP over the contracted load. On this basis, Respondent No.5 proceeded to convert LT service connection into HT connection and directed petitioner to regularize the additional connected load by depositing Rs.29,800/-. The impugned notice further called upon petitioner to submit an explanation, failing which the service connection was proposed to be disconnected immediately after expiry of the notice period. Petitioner categorically asserts that they never applied for / obtained HT connection and have always been operating only under LT connection.

2.2. Petitioner states that they submitted representation on 28.02.2025 to Respondent No.5, pointing out that the connected load had been 124.0 LP for the past three years and that the alleged connected load of 145 HP was never used by them and requested to conduct re-inspection of the premises to ascertain the actual connected load of the petitioner firm. It is also their case that reply dated 17.03.2025 was submitted stating that Respondent No.5 had ascertained the actual consumption load as only 84 LP and accepted the current bill dated 28.02.2025 after deducting the extra load and also confirmed the consumption load of petitioner firm as 84 LP.

2.3. Despite the above developments, it is stated, for March - April 2025, Respondent No.5 has not revoked the impugned notice and continued to erroneously charge electricity bills on HT unit basis and issued the impugned proceedings and consequential bills. It is further stated, even as on the date of filing the affidavit, minimum charges per unit are being levied on HT unit basis, which clearly indicates conversion of service connection from LT to HT category; such levy is unjustifiable and resulted in an exponential increase in monthly electricity bills. For March and April 2025, Rs.79,596/- and Rs.79,628/- respectively were levied. According to petitioner, Respondent No.5 has no material to justify levy of development charges in respect of the said