The Assistant Engineer/Operation vs. M/S. Veerabhadra Swamy Apparels

Facts

The petitioner, TSSPDCL (represented by its Assistant Engineer/Operation and others), challenged an award dated April 22, 2024, passed by the 2nd respondent (an appellate authority). The award set aside a back-billing notice dated November 27, 2020, issued by the petitioner to the respondent, M/s. Veerabhadra Swamy Apparels. The notice demanded Rs. 9,54,127/- for back-billing due to a change in the service connection category from LT-IIIA (Industrial) to LT-II (Commercial), based on an inspection on November 24, 2020, which found no industrial activity and usage for laundry. The petitioner's action was based on an inspection report by respondent No. 7.

Held

The Court held that the award dated April 22, 2024, passed by the 2nd respondent was not illegal and was a reasoned speaking order that warranted no interference. The Court found that the provisional assessment and back-billing notice were bad in law because they were issued without following the procedure stipulated in Clause 3.4.1 of the GTCS. This clause requires the licensee to issue an initial notice to the consumer about the proposed reclassification, providing an opportunity to file objections within 15 days. The Court noted that the petitioner admittedly did not issue such a prior notice, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Court also referred to its previous judgments in similar circumstances. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the award dated April 22, 2024, passed by the 2nd respondent, which set aside the back-billing notice dated November 27, 2020, is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, and contrary to law and facts? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and contractual terms). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent erred in setting aside the back-billing notice. They likely argued that the inspection revealed a misclassification and the back-billing was justified. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the provisional assessment and back-billing notice were illegal and issued without following the procedure stipulated in the General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS), specifically Clause 3.4.1. They contended that they were not put on notice prior to the issuance of the back-billing notice, violating principles of natural justice. They relied on Clause 3.4.1 of the GTCS, which mandates issuing a notice of proposed reclassification and providing an opportunity for objections.