T.Chandrakala vs. Sri Raghuma Reddy And 4 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 7668 of 2020) challenging a sanction memo for electricity service connection, which treated her application as non-domestic instead of domestic. The High Court, vide order dated 31.08.2020, set aside the sanction memo and directed the respondents to consider the application strictly in accordance with Regulation No. 4 of 2013, Electricity Act, and Tariff Rules, prepare fresh estimates, and provide the service connection within one month. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a contempt case (CC No. 845 of 2021) alleging willful disobedience of the court's order. She contended that a revised sanction memo issued by respondent No. 5 included service line charges, which she argued violated the previous order, and that a power line and transformer were already installed nearby. The respondents denied willful disobedience, asserting the revised estimate was in accordance with Regulation No. 4 of 2013 and the Electricity Act.
Held
The Court held that the respondents had complied with the order dated 31.08.2020 under contempt. The Court noted that the respondents had not charged the Rs. 62,802/- towards development charges, which was ordered to be deleted in the previous writ petition, and were only claiming service line charges. The Court reasoned that the scope of contempt jurisdiction is very limited and that it did not have the power to reappraise facts already dealt with and decided in the earlier writ petition. The Court found that the respondents had considered the petitioner's application for a service connection strictly in accordance with the Regulations, the Electricity Act, and Tariff Rules, and had issued a revised sanction memo. The Court concluded that there was no violation, much less a willful or deliberate disobedience, of the order under contempt by the respondents. Therefore, the contempt case was dismissed. The Court also noted that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the revised sanction memo dated 27.01.2021, she had to challenge it before the appropriate forum.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order dated 31.08.2020 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 7668 of 2020, thereby committing contempt of court, particularly concerning the inclusion of service line charges in the revised sanction memo? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the revised sanction memo, dated 27.01.2021, issued by respondent No. 5, which included an estimate of Rs. 1,43,800/- comprising Rs. 1,41,584/- towards service line charges, constituted a willful violation of the court's order. She contended that the previous estimate included transformer costs, which the court had disallowed, and that a power line and transformer were already installed within 100 meters of her plot. She argued that imposing service line charges was an unreasonable condition and a violation of the court's directive to provide the connection in accordance with Regulation No. 4 of 2013, the Electricity Act, and Tariff Rules. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that they had utmost respect for the court's orders and that there was no willful disobedience. They argued that the fresh estimate, including service line charges, development charges, and security deposit, was strictly in accordance with Regulation No. 4 of 2013, the Electricity Act, and Tariff Rules. They stated that the petitioner could not insist on a transformer as it was not required for a single individual consumer and that if she was aggrieved by any provision of Regulation No. 4 of 2013, she should approach the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (TSERC).
Sections Cited
Section 43(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER ...CONTEM NORYRESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, REPRESENTTNG SRI N. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY I
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CONTEMPT CASE No.845 0B 2021 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed complaining the willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders dated 3l'08'2020 passed by this Court in W'P' No.7668 of2020. 2. Heard Mr. S. Rahul Reddy, leamed counsel representing Mr' N' pr"rrushotharn ILetldy, leamed counsel tbr the petitioner and lvlr. R. Vinod Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel appearing on behalfofthe contemnors - respondents.
The petitioner herein has filed W.P. No.7668 of 2020 to declare the impugned Sanction Memo No.DEE/OP/SRNR/COMMLIFCAP/ D.No.2489/19-20, dated 20.02.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent according approval for sanction for an estimate of Rs.2,70,799'31ps', treating the petitioner's application for service connection as non- domestic purpose instead of domestic purpose for providing supply of power to l']lot No.24A in Sy.No.196, Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Pedda Amberpet Municipality in terms of Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and not providing electricity supply even after lapse ol more than a year flom the date of making application dated 29.05.2019 as illegal.
2 KL,.I C.C. No Bl5 ol202l
After hearing both sides' this Court had disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 31'08'2020 The operative portion ol the said order is as under:
"24. ln view of the above discussion' the impugned sanction Memo No'DEE/OP/SRNzuCOMML/F- CAP,D'NO'2489119-20' dated KL'J 12 WP No 7668 of 2020 20'02'2020 issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby set side' The respondents' authorities are directed to consider the application dated 29'05'2019 submitted by the petitioner to provide service connection lor construction of house strictly in accordance rvith Regulation No4 of 2013 dated 29.07 1013' [:lcctricitl Act and 'farill llLrlcs: prcpate lrcsh cstintatcs artd proridc scrvicc ctltttrcctiorl to tltc petitioner on pa)'lnent of necessarl chargcs b1 thc petitioner as per lresh estimates The respondents shall contplete the entire exercise rvithin a period ol one (01 ) uonth lrom the date of reccipt of a copy of this order"'
The petitioner herein had filed the present Contempt Case stating that pursuant to the said order' dated 31'08'2020' respondent No'5 herein (who is not a party to the writ petition) v2" Superintendent Engineer, Saroornagar Circie' issued a revised sanction memo No.SE/OP/SRNtuCOMML/DR'No'445/20-21' D'No'3577/20-21' dated Z'7 .Ol.2O2l,giving an estimate of Rs' 1 '43 '800/- which includes Service Line Charges ol Rs' I ,41 '584/- and Development Charges of Rs' 1 '200/-' which is in violation of the orders of this Court dated 31 08 2020 and Regulation No.4 or2013. According to hiu.r, as per Regr-rratio. No 4. the traiifdrrner charges shall not be charged and the break-up figure ol
J C.C. No.845 of202 t Rs.1,43,800/- has not been disclosed. Further, when the petitioner approached the respondents personally, she was informed that the revised sanction order would be issued in accordance with the order passed by this Courr, bLrt they lailed to implement the order. Despite issuing the legal notice dated 27.03.2020, the respondents failed to provide any service connection till date. Thus, the respondents have committed willful disobedience of the orders dated 31.0g.202()passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and, therefore, they are liable for punishment for adding service line charges.
After receipt of notices in this Contempt Case, tlle respondents filed their counter denying the contentions of the petitioner. It is contended by the respondents that they have given reply to the legal notice got issued by the petitioner stating that the fresh estimate issued by respondent No'5 is strictry in accordance with Reguration No.4 0f 2013 dated 29.03.2017 and the Electricity Acr and Tariff Rules. The fresh estimate contains service line charges of Rs.1,41,5g4l_, development charges of Rs.l,200l_ and security deposit of Rs.g00/_ as per the provisions ot' Ilegulation No.4 of 2013. Thus, the fiesh estimare is in accordance,,vith the order, dated 31.0g.2020 passed by this Court and there is no '",iolation on the part of the respondent as alleged by the petitioner' The petitioner w,l be provided the service connection if the charges are paid, as stipulated in Regulation No.4 of 2013. The petitioner cannot insist for a transformer' as a transformer is not required to provide por,,ibr supply to one individual consumer. In view of the same. the I
4 KL"1 C.C.,\o.3J5 ol')021 corltention ol the petitiorler that the tratrslornlel charges shall not [rc charged separately is inconect' Regulation No'4 of 2013 has been Ii'amed by the TSERC and if the petitioner is aggrieved by any plovision of the Regulation, he has to approacl.t the TSERC'
Referring to the contents of the counter affidavit' Mr' R' Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel' would submit that the respondents have utmost respect and regards towards the orders of this Court and there is no willful disobedience of the order of this Court as alleged by the petitioner. i) With the aforesaid contentions' sought to dismiss the contempt case' the learned standing counsel
A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter aifidavit tiled by the respondents stating that the earlier estirnate tbr Rs.2.70,799.3 I ' dated 20 02'2020 includes tlre cost of 'l-ransfbrnrcr" This Court has set aside the said estimate holding that the Regr'rlations do uot empower the respondents to charge cost of Transfortner' it is lurther mentioned that within a distance of less than i00 meters from the plot ol the petitioner, the respondents have iaid a Power Line and installed a Transformer, but they are not considering her request to provide the power connection from the said line' and imposing cost of Rs'1'43'800/- for a seryice line amounts to imposing unreasonable conditions beyond her means. The respondents estilnated the revised cost excluding the installation of transformer which is in violation of the order dated
)
<).C. No.84 5 of 2021 31.08.2020 passed by this Court. Thus, the respondents are liable for pun ishment
The above stated facts would reveal that this Cour.t vide order dated 31.08.2010 under contempr in w.p. No.766g of 2020 while serting aside the inrpugned sanction memo dated 20.02.2020, directed the respondents' authorities to consider the application dated 29.o5.2otg submitted by the petitioner to provide service connection for construction of house strictly in accordance with Regulation No.4 of 2013, dated 29'07'2013, Electricity Act and rariffRules, prepare fresh estimates and provide service connection to the petitioner on payment of necessary charges by the petitioner as per fresh estimates. It was further directed that the respondents shall complete the entire exercise within a period of one (01) rnonrh fiom the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. In the said order, rhis cou't held that respondent No.3 cannot crai, an amount of Rs.62,802/- towards development charges fiom the petitioner who has applied tbr power supply for construction ofa house.
In cornpliance with the said order, respondent No.5 herein has issued esrimare lor Rs.1,43,g00/_ which includes Rs. 1,41,5g4l_ towards service line charges; Rs.l200/- towards development charges; Rs.g00/_ towards security deposit and Rs.10g/- each towards GGST and SGST on development charges. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents in deriberate violation of the order under contempt issued revised sanctlon memo dated 27.01.2021 adding the amount of Rs'1,41,584/- torvarcls service line charges. It is relevant to note that the C.C. No.845 of 2021 respondents have not charged the said amount of Rs'62,8021, which was ordered to be deleted by the orde| under conternpt, from the petitioner ton,ards developl.ent charqes. -fhey are clainlirrg onll' serr ice line charges. Thus, the respondents have cornplied rvith the orclcl dated i I .08.2010 under contempt. The scope ol conterllpt .iuri iction is r en' limited. Ifthe petitioner is aggrieved by the levised sanction nietllo dated 21 .Ol.2O2l, she has to challenge the same before the appropriate Forunl. In the contempt juri iction, this Court do not have power to reappraise the whole facts which were already dealt with and decided by this court in the earlier writ petition under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India'
In the reply affidavit, the petitioner referring to paragraph No.23 of the order under contempt, would submit that the respondents haveconrmittedcontemptbyviolatingtheorder.underconterlrptlvillfully and deliberatell.. Ile rvoulcl lirrther subnlit that \\'ithirl the distancc ol l0() n1etel.s, the respoudents have laid a porvel line arlcl installed Lrallstbflllcr' after charging Rs.5.00 lakhs. In fact, the petitioner is tr,ving to ir.rtetpret the ordet' under contempt instead ol considerirrg the t'act that the respondents have alreadi' coniplied rvith the irnpugned order b1 considering her application to provide service connection lor construction of house strictly in accordance with the Regulations' the Electricity Act and the Tariff Rules. According to this Court' there is no violation, much less deliberate and willful violation of the order under contemPt bY the resPondents' ./ C.C. No.B45 of 2021
As discussed above, if the petitioner is having any grievance with regard to the impugned revised sanction memo dated 27.01 .2021, she has to challenge the same before the appropriate Forum. Instead of doing so, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. As observed above, there is no violation, much less willful or deliberate disobedience of the order under contempt by the respondents and, therefore, the contempt case is liable to be dismissed. 13, The present Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. As a seqr"rel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Contempt Case stand closed. .C.V.MALLIKARJ U NA VARMA DEPU'I-Y REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER To,
Sri Raghuma Recldy, Chairman and Managing Director, Telangana State Southern Power Diatribution Company Lim'lted, Hyderabad
Sri Karunaker, Divisional Engineer Operation, Tel'angana State Southern power Distribution Company Limited, Saroornagar, Hydera6ad.
Sri C. lglender Reddy, The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Hayatnagar, Ranga Reddy District 4. 9ri Srinivas Reldy, TheAssistant Engineer, Pedda Amberpet, Ranga Reddy District
SriJ_Srinivas, Superintending Engineer (Operations), SaroorNagar Circle, TSSPDCL, Saroornagar, Hyderabad.
One CC to Sri N. Purushotham Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl
One CC to Sri R. Vinod Reddy, SC for TRRTSCO, tOpubl B. Two CD Copies
One Spare Copy Kul t- su,#-
HIGH COURT DATED: 0411012021 ORDER CC.No.845 of 2021 DISMISSING TI.IE CONTEMPT CASE I4: .,.9 P,lT SI E A H 1 q o 20?l CT 0 0 3 o * * .S lt )
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.