THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed calling for the records and seeking to quash the order dated 29.06.2018 in CG No.94 of

2018 passed by 1^st respondent.

2. Heard Sri A.Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel for TSNPDCL for petitioners and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners entered into an agreement dated 08.04.2011 to supply electricity under Category-III to M/s. Venkata Sai Brick Industry, Nekkonda Village (Service No. 2112-02488), in the name of Smt. A. Saritha. However, the 2^nd respondent was found using the electricity unauthorizedly for commercial godowns, which was not permitted under the sanctioned category. Following inspection, a provisional assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was issued on 13.02.2017 for Rs.15,33,996/- for 4 years (from 10.02.2013 to 09.02.2017). Though no timely reply was given, the 2^nd respondent later admitted unauthorized use and requested reassessment. After further inspections, a final assessment was issued on 18.10.2017 for Rs.8,67,640/-, confirming unauthorized use. The 2^nd respondent filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer (Appeal No. 675 of 2018) and the same was rejected vide order dated 05.03.2018. Aggrieved by the same, he then filed Complaint No. 94 of 2018 before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), which, on 29.06.2018, wrongly reduced the assessment period to 2 years by applying Section 56(2) which deals with regular billing, not unauthorized use. The petitioners submit that CGRF had no authority to alter an assessment made under Section 126, and there is no appeal forum for the licensee. Hence, the petitioners has no alternative remedy has filed this Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit stating that the writ petition is not maintainable in law as petitioners has an effective alternative remedy. The provisional assessment of ₹8,67,640/- issued against Consumer Service No.211202488 is arbitrary and baseless. It is stated that they own only one godown out of several in the area, and it uses minimal electricity, mainly relying on a generator.

The adjacent brick industry, M/s. Venkata Sai Brick Industries, owned by Smt. A. Saritha, is the actual consumer of the power, but the entire connected load was wrongly attributed to his godown during an inspection on 24.08.2017. It is further stated that regular departmental inspections over the years have never found any misuse of electricity. The name "Challa Godowns" is only a local identifier and not a registered firm. His godown is used solely for storing food grains for the Food Corporation of India, which does not require electricity. Aggrieved by the erroneous assessment, he filed C.G.No.94 of 2018 before the 1^st Respondent, who, after due consideration, rightly held that recovery of electricity dues beyond two years without prior notice is barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and directed reassessment limited to two years before the inspection. The said order is legal, proper, and does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, warranting no interference by this Court.

5. In Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, 2012 (2) SCC 108, this Court has considered the scope

of the Explanation to Section 126 of the 2003 Act. While dealing with the issue, it has been laid down at para 29, which reads as under:

“29. Thus, it would be clear that the expression “unauthorised use of electricity” under Section 126 of the 2003 Act deals with cases of unauthorised use, even in the absence of intention. These cases would certainly be different from cases where there is dishonest abstraction of electricity by any of the methods enlisted under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. A clear example would be where a consumer has used excessive load as against the installed load simpliciter and th