Telangana High Court
S.A. Azeem vs The State Of Telangana on 3 March, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.6255 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard Mohammad Imtiyaz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energy, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
"...to issue any writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring the actions of the Respondents, including the impugned letter Lr.No.ADE/OP/ASRaoNagar/ D.No.15/24/25, dated 06.09.2024, issued by Respondent No.3, as arbitrary, highhanded, ultra vires, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, wherein my representation was summarily rejected on the ground that the lease agreement is unregistered and lacks evidentiary value under Section 17(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, which is a legal question that has to be adjudicated by the competent court of law and not unilaterally decided by a government officer, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider my representation dated 2 05.09.2024 in accordance with law and restore electricity services bearing Service Connection Nos.101905368 and 101905370 without imposing any reconnection charges on the Petitioner, and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of justice."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the lawful lessee and occupant of the premises bearing H.No.3-5- 229/1/2/3, Block No.5, Krishna Nagar Colony, Mallapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana. The petitioner is residing in the said premises along with his family under lease agreement for a period starting from 15.06.2023 to 14.06.2027. The lease agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 & 6 and the petitioner paid security deposit amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent Nos.5 and 6. On 24.05.2024, respondent No.5 with malacious intention submitted Demand Draft Nos.418595 and 418593 to the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL), requesting to dismantle the electricity connection to the subject premises. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 05.09.2024 to respondent No.4 requesting the respondents to restore the petitioner's power supply. However, 3 without considering the said representation, the 4th respondent passed impugned proceedings No.ADE/OP/AS Rao Nagar/D.No.775/24-25 dated 06.09.2024 stating that no action is required to be taken on the representation filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. The impugned proceedings No.ADE/OP/AS Rao Nagar/D.No.:775/24-25 dated 06.09.2024 of the Assistant Divisional Engineer Operation, A.S. Rao Nagar, TGSPDCL, addressed to the petitioner herein, is extracted hereunder:-
With reference to the above cited, I have taken legal opinion and it is to inform that "As per Section 17 (d) of Registration Act 1908, leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent shall have to be made by a registered document. Since the lease agreement dated 15.06.2023 relied on by Sri SA Azeem is an unregistered lease deed, it has no evidentiary value and hence it cannot be taken into consideration to hold that Sri SA Azeem is the tenant of the subject premises. Admittedly, Sri Khaja Hussain is the owner of the subject premises. In the circumstances mentioned above and in view of the 4 fact that Sri SA Azeem failed to establish his tenancy over the subject premises".
Hence these is no need of taking any action on your representation (Sri.S.A.Azeem)"
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order impugned dated 06.09.2024 needs to be set aside, since the petitioner is in possession of the subject premises in the capacity of tenant, the petitioner made a representation dated 05.09.2024 for restoration of power supply to S.C.Nos.101905368 and 101905370 in respect of the subject premises bearing No.3-5-229/1/2/3, Ward No.3, Block No.5, Krishna Nagar Colony, Mallapur, GHMC, Circle, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana, and the same cannot be rejected on the ground that the petitioner relied on unregistered lease deed. The petitioner as on date is in possession of the subject premises and the official respondents high-handedly disconnected the power supply.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the petitioner failed to produce the relevant documents in support of the petitioner's claim evidencing that the petitioner is the occupant of the 5 subject premises and the petitioner relied upon an unregistered lease deed and hence, the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.09.2024 had been rejected. He further submits that upon the petitioner making a fresh representation seeking for restoration of electricity service connection to USC No.101905368 and SC.No.170200098 pertaining to the subject property i.e., bearing No.3-5-229/1/2/3, Block No.5, Krishna Nagar Colony, Mallapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana, the same would be considered in accordance with law upon the petitioner furnishing the requisite documents as mandated under the rules.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
8. 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 owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply:
Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-6
stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission: 1 Subs. by Act 26 of 2007, Sec.8 for the words "Every distribution"
Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, "application" means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances.] (2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1) :
Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission.
(3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default."
9. The Apex Court vide judgment in "Anthony Vs. K.C. Ittoop and Sons", reported in (2000) 6 SCC 394, held that unregistered lease agreement can still serve as evidence of 7 possession and occupation under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
10. The Apex in the Judgment reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453 in between 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."
11. The Apex Court in its Judgment reported in (2011)12 Supreme Court Cases 314 in between 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 8 and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act."
"43. Duty to supply on request-(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply."
7. It will be clear from sub-section (1) of Section 42 that every distribution licensee has a duty to develop and maintain an efficient co-ordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 43 provides that every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. These provisions in the Electricity Act, 2003 make it amply clear that a distribution licensee has a statutory duty to supply electricity to an owner or occupier of any premises located in the area of supply of electricity of the distribution licensee, if such owner or occupier of the premises applies for it, and correspondingly every owner or occupier of any premises has a statutory right to apply for and obtain such electric supply from the distribution licensee.
12. The case of the appellant, on the other hand, is that this passage is not a private passage of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 but is a common passage and therefore an electric line can be drawn through this common passage. This dispute will have to be resolved in Civil Suit No.83 of 2004 pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah, or in any other suit, but pending resolution of this dispute between the parties, the appellant cannot be denied supply of electricity to his house.
11. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned order of the 9 Division Bench and dispose of the Writ Petition of respondent nos. 1 to 3 with the direction that the distribution licensee will find out whether there is any other way in which electric line can be drawn for supply of electricity to the house of the appellant, other than the disputed passage in Dag Nos.406, 407 and 409. If there is no other way to supply electricity to the house of the appellant, the distribution licensee will follow the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for carrying out the work for supply of electricity to the house of the appellant. 12 . The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2022 LiveLaw 570 in between Dilip (dead) through Ls Vs. Satish and others passed in CRLA No.810 of 2022 (arising out of Special Leave petition (CRL)No.8917 of 2019, dated 13.05.2022 observed as under:
"It is not disputed that applicant No.1 has obtained the connection of electricity. The submissions made show that applicant No. 1 is in possession of the shop and he is running a saloon shop. It is clear that he needs electricity for doing this business, but the first informant was not giving no objection certificate. He took every step to see that applicant No. 1 does not get supply of electricity for his business. It is not the case of the Applicant No. 1 that as per the agreement between him and landlord, the landlord is bound to supply the electricity. Further, the Electricity Board seeks no objection of landlord only to verify that the possession of the tenant is authorised. There is no other purpose behind obtaining such no objection from landlord. The landlord cannot prevent the tenant from availing such facility at his own cost.
It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the 10 landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question. Be that as it may, the High Court clearly fell in error in quashing the FIR. It cannot be said that fabrication and/or creation of records and/or forging a signature does not constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The High Court completely overlooked the definition of cheating in Section 415 of the IPC. It is however made clear that electricity supply granted, shall not be discontinued, subject to compliance by the Respondents of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity by the electricity department including payment of charges for the same.
13. Taking into consideration:
a). The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.
b). The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4.
c). The contents of the petitioner's representation dated 05.09.2024.
d) The observations of the Apex Court in the judgments given below:- (referred to and extracted above)
i) The Judgment of the Apex Court in K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State of Electricity Board and others reported in 11 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453 in Civil Appeal Nos.2109 and 2110 of 2004, dated 19.05.2023,
ii) The judgment of the Apex Court in Chandu Khamaru Vs. Nayan Malik and Others reported in (2011)12 Supreme Court Cases 314 in Civil Appeal No.7575 of 2011 dated 02.09.2011
iii) The judgment of the Apex Court in Dilip (dead) through Ls Vs. Satish and others reported in 2022 LiveLaw 570 in CRLA No.810 of 2022 (arising out of Special Leave petition (CRL)No.8917 of 2019, dated 13.05.2022.
iv) The Judgment of the Apex Court in Anthony Vs. K.C. Ittoop and Sons reported in (2000) 6 SC 394.
The writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make a fresh application to the respondent No.4 herein seeking restoration of electricity service connection bearing USC No.101905368 and SC.No.170200098 within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent No.4 upon receipt of the same with all the requisite documents as mandated under the rules in force 12 as on date is directed to consider the same in accordance to law by duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate orders on the said application within a period of one (1) week thereafter. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________ MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Date: 03.03.2025 Note: Issue CC by today b/o DSU 13 HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA W.P.No.6255 OF 2025 Date: 03.03.2025 Note: Issue CC by today b/o Dsu