M/S. Asha Medical Hall vs. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Asha Medical Hall and its proprietor Harish K. Raney, sought a writ of mandamus against the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (TSSPDCL) and its officials. They alleged inaction by Respondent No. 4 in considering their online applications to correct the billing address for electricity service connections USC. 101316457 and 101316459. The petitioners claim these connections were originally in the name of M/s. Asha Medical Hall since 1962. However, after digitalization of accounts, the billing address and name were changed to Paramanand Gupta, who is unconnected with the service connections. The petitioners submitted online applications on August 1, 2022, December 9, 2022, and December 24, 2022, for this correction, but no action was taken.

Held

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's application dated December 24, 2022, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court emphasized that this consideration should be done after giving due notice to the affected persons. The Court found that the petitioner had already made an online application seeking rectification of the billing address and that the respondents ought to have considered it by providing due notice to the person in whose name the electricity connection was currently registered. The Court did not delve into the merits of the alleged illegality or unconstitutionality but focused on directing the procedural step of considering the application with due notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of Respondent No. 4 in not considering the online applications for correction of billing address is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of statutory duty, thereby infringing Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that the respondents' failure to act on their repeated online applications for correcting the billing address, which was erroneously changed to an unrelated individual's name, constitutes a violation of their statutory duty and fundamental rights. They contended that the prolonged inaction is arbitrary and illegal. Revenue/State's Argument: The learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 stated that they would come up with instructions. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents regarding the merits of the case.