Aravinda Kumar Bang vs. The Ap Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The primary reason for dismissal was the finding that the petitioners had filed a common writ petition despite having three separate and independent electricity connections, with no common cause of action. The Court observed that the facts of the individual connections were mixed up to mislead the Court and obtain relief under Article 226. The Court found that the petitioners had an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the Divisional Engineer (Operations), Rajahmundry, within 15 days of the notice. The Court also noted that the petitioners had approached the Divisional Engineer with a representation regarding the validity of the assessments. The Court concluded that the disconnection of electricity service connections, while potentially giving rise to a cause of action, did not create a common cause for filing a single writ petition for three distinct connections. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, three in number, filed a writ petition challenging a provisional assessment of short billing issued by the respondent authority. The assessment pertained to an agricultural service connection of the 2nd petitioner. The petitioners also challenged the disconnection of electricity supply to their other two separate service connections, which they claimed were illegal and arbitrary. They had paid Rs. 50,000/- each to restore power and faced further threats of disconnection. The petitioners argued that their service connections were distinct and separate, and the disconnection of their supply for dues related to another connection was unlawful. They also contended that the provisional assessment lacked proper details and was made without notice. The respondent authorities initiated the provisional assessment due to alleged excess consumption of free units for the agricultural connection.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disconnection of electricity supply to the petitioners' individual service connections for alleged dues pertaining to another consumer's service connection is illegal and arbitrary, violating the Electricity Act and General Terms and Conditions of Supply? 2. Whether the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy against the disconnection of power supply, or is approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India justified? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that there is no provision in the Electricity Act or the General Terms and Conditions of Supply that allows for the disconnection of other service connections of a consumer for non-payment of dues related to a different service connection. They argued that the disconnection was illegal and arbitrary, especially after the repeal of older Electricity Acts, and that the remedies under Section 42 of the Electricity Act were not efficacious. They also argued that the provisional assessment was made without proper notice or details. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state. However, it notes the petitioners' contention that the terms and conditions of power supply are saved by a saving clause, implying the respondents likely relied on such clauses to justify their actions.