Mohammed Ilyasuddin vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammed Ilyasuddin, a consumer of electricity for his business, received a provisional assessment notice dated January 30, 2025, from the 4th respondent (Assistant Divisional Engineer) under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The notice alleged theft of electricity and demanded Rs. 2,07,728/-. The petitioner contended that the inspection date mentioned in the notice (October 28, 2024) was impossible as the tampered meter was allegedly taken by the department on July 8, 2024. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation on February 10, 2025, to the 4th respondent, requesting withdrawal of the notice and expressing willingness to pay the compounding fee under protest, which was paid on February 18, 2025. As the representation remained unaddressed, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to dispose of the representation and to refrain from coercive steps, including power disconnection, without due process.

Held

The Court directed the respondents not to disconnect the petitioner's electricity service connection bearing SC.No.A3002537. The petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the amount indicated in the provisional assessment notice, totaling Rs. 1,03,864/-, within four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order. Upon such deposit, the respondents were directed to refer the subject issue to the Special Court as mandated under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, for passing appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter. The respondents were also restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of the un-assessed amount until the civil liability is determined by the appropriate Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court noted the submissions of both parties and the contents of the provisional assessment notice and Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional assessment notice dated January 30, 2025, issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is vitiated by factual inconsistencies regarding the inspection date and meter seizure, thus warranting its withdrawal or modification? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the provisional assessment notice is flawed due to contradictory dates regarding the inspection and seizure of the meter, suggesting a false implication. The petitioner also highlighted that the service connection had not been disconnected despite the notice stating so and sought protection of their interest until the deposit of 50% of the assessed amount. The petitioner relied on their representation dated February 10, 2025, for consideration. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through their learned standing counsel, contended that the provisional assessment notice clearly indicates the demand of Rs. 2,07,728/- based on assessment rules and clause 10 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, pending determination of civil liability under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, the petitioner is obligated to pay 50% of the assessed amount for further action by the respondent under Section 154(5) of the Act, and the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage.