M/S Manjeera Pipes Private LTD. vs. The Southern Power Distribution Company Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Manjeera Pipes Private Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an abnormal electricity bill dated October 26, 2022, for Rs. 5,78,881, which included arrears of Rs. 10,33,456, totaling Rs. 16,12,338. The bill was issued in the name of a previous entity, M/s. Sardar Bright Bar Industry. The petitioner had purchased the industrial plot and obtained approval for power supply restoration under a sick unit revival scheme. Power supply was restored on October 1, 2022, after a period of 10 years. The petitioner argued that they had not yet commenced production and were only conducting trial runs, making the bill arbitrary. The respondents contended that bills are raised based on consumption recorded by the meter, and a joint inspection revealed a defect in the transformer causing abnormal consumption.

Held

The Court directed the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 5,78,881/- along with applicable interest in six equal monthly installments. The first installment was to be paid on or before January 9, 2023. Upon receipt of the first installment, the respondents were directed to restore the power supply. The Court noted that if the petitioner fails to pay any installment, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law. The Court found it appropriate to grant time for payment considering the petitioner's submission that production had not yet commenced and the difficulty in paying the entire amount at once. The issue of who is responsible for the defective transformer was not expressly decided, but the petitioner was directed to pay the consumption charges.

Key Issues

1. Whether the abnormal electricity bill dated October 26, 2022, issued for the month of October 2022 in connection with consumer No. HBG 1899, and the subsequent letter dated November 24, 2022, are arbitrary and illegal, violating the petitioner's rights under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the bill was exorbitant and arbitrary as they had not yet started production and were only conducting trial runs. They argued that the abnormal consumption was due to a technical problem with the transformer, which was old and defective, as indicated by the respondents' own inspection report. They relied on previous court orders directing power restoration subject to payment of a portion of the demanded amount. Respondents' Argument: The respondents argued that bills are raised based on the consumption recorded by the electricity meter as per departmental regulations. They submitted that a joint inspection revealed a defect in the transformer, causing abnormal reactive power draw. They maintained that the petitioner is liable to pay for the consumption charges recorded, irrespective of the transformer's condition, and that the power supply was disconnected due to non-payment.