THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

ORDER:

The petitioner challenges the order of 3^rd Respondent dated

10.03.2025 confirming the 4th Respondent’s final assessment order dated 21.05.2024, which demands payment of Rs.3,78,394/- within 30 days towards electricity charges for SC.Nos.0839 17574 and 0839 17575 at Survey Nos.530/A, 532, 533, Ram Das Nagar, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, with a threat of disconnection.

2. Heard Sri Mettu Shankar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner and her brother have been independently running Yerra Lalitha Gardens and Yerra Srinivas Gardens on the same premises for 13 years, each with separate electricity meters (SC Nos. 083917574 and 083917575) and regularly paying the bills. An inspection conducted on 25.11.2023 by the ADE (Smt. P. Madhavi) alleged that both services were clubbed, leading to a back-billing assessment under the HT-2 category for Rs.3,78,394/- for the period from 07.03.2023 to 07.02.2024. Based on this, the 4^th respondent issued a Final Assessment Order (for short, “FAO”) on 21.05.2024 confirming the demand and directing payment within 30 days, failing which disconnection would follow. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent on 03.06.2024, paid 50% of the assessed amount. Despite the appeal being pending, the electricity connections were disconnected on 17.02.2025 without notice or an opportunity to be heard. Petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.4923 of 2025, which led to restoration of power and a direction to the 3^rd respondent to dispose of the appeal. Nevertheless, the 3rd respondent, by order dated

10.03.2025, confirmed the FAO. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioner also agreed that a common entrance to both the Function Halls is being used, which itself is sufficient for clubbing the two service connections into a Single Service connection by invoking Clause 5.3 of General Terms and Conditions of supply. He further relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Ashwani Kumar1 wherein it is held that clubbing of separate Service connections in

1 2010 (7) SCC p.569

single premises is permissible and back billing can be assessed under Section 126 of Electricity Act, for the loss caused due to taking of separate connections. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of material on record, the petitioner’s claim that the two function halls are separate is rejected. As both halls are on the same premises and share a common entrance, clubbing the service connections is justified. The back billing and assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is valid. Further, petitioner has got an efficacious alternative remedy before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum.

6. In view of the above, this Writ Petition dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date: 29.10.2025 dgr