Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
T. Sree Rama Murthy And Ors. vs Special Officer (District Collector, ... on 23 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)ALD731
ORDER P.S. Narayana, J.
1. The petitioners filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 4th and 5th respondents in disconnecting the supply of electricity at the instance of the 1st and 2nd respondents as arbitrary, mala fide and illegal, unfair and unjust and further direct them to supply electricity to the Saw Mills of the petitioner without acting on the instructions of the first respondent and to pass such other suitable orders.
2. The case of the petitioners, as narrated in the affidavit, is that one Gullapalli Mohan Rao owns an extent of Acs. 2-38 gts., of land in Osmansahebpet, within the limits of Nellore Municipality, which is in the Industrial Zone, and after getting approval of the plans from the concerned authorities, he leased out all the plots to various persons including the petitioners 1 and 2 for running their Industrial Units in the said plots and at present, there are eight Industrial Units, the details of which had been furnished, and all these persons including the petitioners 1 and 2 registered their Units with Labour, Factories and Boilers Department, by paying necessary fee and they also obtained licences from the second respondent to run their Units and further they had also obtained service connections from the Electricity Department by making necessary deposits and all these Units are functioning in the said area for the last 20 years. The third petitioner got 1,000 square yards on lease, lease amount being Rs. 50,000/- per year and established a Saw Mill in the said area by investing an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and he had also obtained connection by making necessary deposits from the Electricity Department for his Units. It was also stated that the District Collector after becoming the Special Officer of Nellore Municipality, after expiry of the terms of the Municipal Council, had been pressurizing all the petitioners and others to shift their Saw Mill Units to the outside area of Municipal limits and they requested the first respondent to provide suitable sites and all the facilities for running Saw Mills. But, however, such sites were not provided in Wood complex, as no plot was available in the said complex. It is also stated that the first respondent, without passing written orders, had been insisting to shift the units and since, the petitioners, are not obliged, the first respondent had made respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to instruct respondent No. 5 to disconnect the power supply on 17-1-1994 not only to the Units of the petitioners, but also to the other Units, and certain other parties had filed WPNo. 706 of 1994.
3. While narrating the further, details, it was also stated that one G. Sreedhar Rao, who established Sri Satyanarayana Saw Mill at premises No. 5/458, 5th Ward, Nellore Municipality, had leased out the said Unit in the year 1987 and the said lease is being renewed for every three years and the initial lease amount was at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per year for the first three years and for the second three years, the lease amount was enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-per annum and in the year 1993, after expiry of the first renewal, again the lease was renewed in the year 1993 for a further period of three years and at present the lease amount is Rs. 20,000/- per annum. The registration number of the Saw Mill with Labour, Factories and Boilers Department in 8168 for the supply of electricity by the A.P. State Electricity Board. Apart from these details, several other details had been narrated in paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition to show how the petitioners have been running their business and also to show how the petitioners had invested huge amounts for running their Saw Mills. It was also stated that respondent No. 4 instructed respondent No. 5 to disconnect the supply of electricity on 17-1-1994 on the instructions of first respondent and immediately they questioned respondent No. 5, for which a reply was given that the disconnection was effected on the instructions of fourth respondent. But, unfortunately, they had expressed their inability to restore the electricity supply and also clarified the position that unless the first respondent gives the clearance, the power supply cannot be restored and on 20-1-1994, the petitioners made written representations to first respondent and requested him to instruct the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to restore the electricity to their Units and again, first respondents insisted that the petitioners should shift their Units outside the Municipal limits and again, the petitioners represented that if required land is provided with all the facilities, they would shift their Units and the first respondent had stated that it is not his responsibility. The petitioners also had stated that on their behalf, Sri C.V. Seshu Reddy and Sri J.K. Reddy, the then MLAs, of Nellore and Sarvepally constituencies met first respondent and requested him regarding restoration of power supply, but of no consequence and in the said circumstances, the petitioners were constrained to file the present writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs specified supra.
4. On 27-1-1994, this Court in WPMP No. 1213 of 1994 had granted interim direction directing to restore the electricity to the concerned service numbers. So the interim direction continues and it is not vacated.
5. Counter-affidavits were filed on behalf of the second respondent and also respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in this regard. The Commissioner, Nellore Municipality, in the counter-affidavit filed had taken a specific stand that all the petitioners were given notices and they were also informed to avoid nuisance, air pollution and traffic congestion, they should shift their shops to Wood Complex and that they are running their Saw Mills without valid licences. It was also specifically stated that the petitioners had not obtained licences from the second respondent to run their Units and they are actually running the Units without any valid licences and that they have been running the Saw Mills unauthorisedly and causing nuisance to the public, it was also stated that most of the Saw Mill owners have been provided with plots and have been doing their business at Wood Complex and the petitioners are expected to apply for the plots, if they need the plots at the Wood Complex for running their business. It was also stated that even though the petitioners were requested to shift their Units long back, they are trying to continue the same in the residential zone and all the Saw Mill owners and Timber Depot owners are creating nuisance by encroaching road margins and also obstructing the free flow of traffic and hence, the power connection was disconnected. The said action was said to be justified by the Municipality in the interest of both public health and also the public interest.
6. A counter-affidavit was also filed on behalf of R3 and R4 wherein it was stated that as per the oral instructions of the Special Officer (District Collector, Nellore) of the Nellore Municipality, the Industrial (Cat.III) Service Nos. 8168/N5, 21154/N5 and 3551/T2A are disconnected for the purpose of shifting the services to Wood Complex, Industrial Estate, Nellore. It was also stated that the consumers of the above services have orally informed that they have requested to the Special Officer, Nellore Municipality, regarding their difficulties in shifting their Units to Wood Complex and thereafter, as per the oral instructions received from the Special Officer (District Collector) of Nellore Municipality, the said service connections are reconnected and the services are in live conditions and there are no outstanding arrears against the aforesaid services.
7. Sri Narayana representing Sri M. Ravindra Nath Reddy had contended that the disconnection was affected by the respondent No. 5 on the instructions of the respondent No. 4, who in turn had acted on the oral instructions given by the respondent No. 1 in this regard are totally unsustainable. The learned Counsel had pointed out that as far as the other aspects are concerned, it is for the Municipality to initiate appropriate action under the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act and the authorities of A.P. State Electricity Board cannot resort to the effecting of disconnection on the oral instructions or directions of the respondent No. 1 in this regard. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to 42.2 of the APSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply and had contended that even in such a case the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are expected to issue a notice and after following the procedure only, the authorities of APSEB can take appropriate action in this regard.
8. Sri Sambasiva Pratap, the learned standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had strenuously contended that the instructions were issued for the disconnection of power supply only in the public interest and it was also submitted that in the present writ petition, the petitioners are questioning only the aspect of unauthorised disconnection of power supply and no other question was raised. The learned Counsel also had contended that the authorities of the concerned Municipality are at liberty to initiate appropriate action in this regard under the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act.
9. Sri K.N. Jwala representing respondent Nos. 3 to 5 also had drawn my attention to condition No. 42.2 of the APSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply as it stood on the date of the cause of action. The learned Counsel also had contended that in view of the public interest involved, as a statutory authority, on the instructions of the first respondent, the concerned respondents had bona fidely acted and hence, there is no illegality in the said action. The learned Counsel also had submitted that inasmuch as now the supply of electricity had been restored and the service connections are in live condition, virtually, the writ petition became infructuous and no further orders are necessary in this regard.
10. Heard the Counsel on record and also perused the material available on record.
11. The facts, which had been narrated in detail above, need not be repeated again. The principal question, which falls for consideration in this writ petition, is "whether the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are entitled to effect disconnection of the power supply to the Units of the petitioners on the oral instructions of the first respondent or whether a notice has to be issued before effecting such discontinuance of power supply".
12. '42.2' of APSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, as it stood as on the date of the cause of action, reads as follows:
"Where the consumer requires a licence or permission from any statutory authority or any authority of Government to run the business/industry, or permission for lifting of water wherever necessary for purposes of irrigation, or for any other purpose for which he seeks or availing supply of electricity or for locating such business/ industry/pumpset or any other equipment at the place where he is receiving such supply and where the conduct of his said business/ industry/activity at such place becomes unlawful by reasons of his failure to obtain initially or secure the continuance of such license or permission, the Superintending Engineer of the Board may, if desired by the concerned statutory or any other competent authority of Government, after giving notice calling for explanation and after considering the same, discontinue supply without forfeiting the rights of the APSE Board under the agreement with the consumer."
As per '42.2' of the said conditions, "the Superintending Engineer of the Board may, if desired by the concerned statutory or any other competent authority of Government, after giving notice calling for explanation and after considering the same, discontinue supply without forfeiting the rights of the APSE Board under the agreement with the consumer". Hence, it is clear that while initiating such an action, notice has to be issued by the competent authority in this regard. It is needless to mention that the consumer and the APSEB are governed by the APSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply. It is also not in dispute that the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had effected disconnection of the electricity supply on the instructions of the first respondent. No doubt, specific stand had been taken that it is a bona fide action done keeping in view of the public interest involved. It is, no doubt, true that the public interest involved in the matter also has to be given due weight while deciding the rights of the citizens in the realm of the public law field, but at the same time, a balance has to be maintained in this regard. When specifically the Terms and Conditions of Supply provide for the issuance of a notice and further, inasmuch as, such action on the part of the authorities of APSE Board lands the concerned consumers into serious trouble, the authorities are expected to observe the principles of natural justice. In any view of the matter, in a matter of this nature, proceeding with the action of the disconnection of the electricity supply without issuance of any notice to the concerned consumers cannot be said to be sustainable in law. It is needless to mention that the concerned authorities under the Municipality are at liberty to initiate appropriate action relating to the shifting of the Units under the relevant provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act. It is also made clear that if the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 intend to initiate any action in this regard, further, at the instance of the respondent Nos. 1 or 2 or any other statutory authority or competent authority, it is needless to mention that the authorities have to follow the procedure as specified under '42.2' of the APSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply.
13. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.