HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.10289 OF 2024

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Dunna Ambedkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“ … to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in issuing electricity bill to the petitioner and restore the power supply to the electricity connections Service Nos. 4240128491, 4240128492 and 2404133774 in Sy. No. 676 situated at Kodada Town and Mandal Suryapet District is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the agreement evidence on record violation of the principles of natural justice and as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India set aside the same consequently direct the respondents to restore the electrical connection to the petitioners house and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into lease agreement dated 21.11.2019 with one Kunduri Aruna over the land in Sy.No.676 admeasuring 520 sq. yards (vacant land) situated at Kodada Town and Mandal Suryapet District, for a period of five years i.e from 01.12.2019 to 30.11.2024, wherein the petitioner is running a restaurant in the said premises with electricity connection service Nos. 4240128491, 4240128492 and 2404133774 and has been paying electricity charges regularly. Taking advantage of the disputes between the petitioner and the said Kunduri Aruna (lessor), the respondent No.5 herein had disconnected the electricity connections of the petitioner’s restaurant. The petitioner had approached the authorities of the respondents and requested to restore electricity. However, the same was not considered. Hence the writ petition.

4. Mr. R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 on instructions submits that the dispute is betw een the ow ner and the tenant of the subject premises and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

5. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as under “Section 43. (Duty to supply on request)

(1)(Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution) licensee, shall, on an application by the ow ner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, w ithin one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply:

6. The Apex in the Judgment reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453 in betw een K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State of Electricity Board and others passed in Civil Appeal Nos.2109 and 2110 of 2004, dated 19.05.2023, observed as under:

“Electricity Act, 2003; Section 43 - The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities.”

7. The Apex Court in its Judgment reported in (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 314 in betw een Chandu Khamaru Vs. Nayan Malik and Others passed in Civil Appeal No.7575 of 2011 dated 02.09.2011 observed as under:

Sub-section (1) of Section 42 and sub-section (1) of Section

43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are quoted herein below:

"42. Duties of distribution licensees and open access-(1) It shall be the duty of a distribution licensee to develop and maintain an efficient co-ordinate and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act."

"43. Duty to supply on request-(1) Save a