Yerra Chander Shekar Goud vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Yerra Chander Shekar Goud, proprietor of Yerra Lalitha Gardens, is challenging a final assessment order dated May 21, 2024, issued by the Divisional Engineer (Respondent No. 4), demanding electricity charges of Rs. 3,77,211. This order was issued despite an appeal filed by the petitioner on June 3, 2024, before the Superintending Engineer (Respondent No. 3). The petitioner also contests the disconnection of power supply to his connections (SC Nos. 083917574 and 083917575) on February 17, 2025, which occurred while his appeal was pending. The assessment was based on allegations of two services being clubbed into a single service, leading to back billing under HT-2 Category from March 2023 to February 2024.

Held

The Court held that the disconnection of power supply to the petitioner's connections was illegal and arbitrary, especially since an appeal was pending before the appellate authority and the petitioner had complied with the pre-deposit requirement. The Court directed the respondents to forthwith restore the power supply to the petitioner's connections (SC Nos. 083917574 and 083917575). Furthermore, the Court directed the Superintending Engineer (Respondent No. 3) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal, filed on June 3, 2024, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court also stated that there would be no order as to costs. The ratio decidendi is that statutory appeals, when filed with the requisite pre-deposit, must be adjudicated upon before coercive measures like disconnection of essential services are taken.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disconnection of power supply to the petitioner's connections by the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice, given that an appeal against the final assessment order is pending before the appellate authority? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the disconnection of power supply is illegal and arbitrary as it occurred while his appeal against the final assessment order was pending. He submitted that he had filed a representation on June 3, 2024, which was treated as an appeal, and had deposited 50% of the assessed amount (Rs. 1,89,197) as required for considering the appeal. Therefore, the power supply should not have been disconnected without disposing of the appeal. Respondents' contention: The learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL did not dispute the pendency of the petitioner's appeal and the deposit of 50% of the assessed amount. They requested appropriate orders from the Court.