SHAIK MOHAMMED Vs. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER APCPDCL HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that respondent No. 2 is not giving electricity connection to the house bearing No. 12-2-419/C-7, Mudranagar, Vishwas Nagar, Hyderabad on the ground that he has not produced consent from the land owner. According to the petitioner, he is a tenant of the above mentioned premises and there is a suit and counter-suit filed by him and his landlady with respect to the said premises. While the said suits are pending, electricity has been disconnected by the respondents at the instance of the landlady. The petitioner has made an application before respondent No. 2 for release of fresh supply. The petitioner pleaded that the said application is not sanctioned on the ground that he has failed to submit the consent of the landlady.

(2.) At the hearing, Sri S.V. Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P. Central Power Distribution Corporation Limited, submitted that the petitioner has submitted the application to respondent No. 2 instead of submitting the same to the Customer Service Center, which in turn would forward the same to respondent No. 2, after releasing the meter. The learned counsel therefore submitted that in view of this procedural lapse on the part of the petitioner, his application could not be considered.

(3.) Inasmuch as respondent No. 2 has admittedly received the application of the petitioner, he is directed to send the same to the Customer Service Center, which after processing the same shall forward it to respondent No. 2 in the light of the general terms and conditions of supply. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Customer Service Center cannot insist on the petitioner for production of consent by the landlady. Under Clause 3.2 of the A.P. State Electricity Board Revised Terms and Conditions of Sale of Electricity to Persons other than Licensees, it is sufficient if the petitioner is able to give proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises and also executing an indemnity bond indemnifying the Board against any losses on account of disputes arising out of the release of service to the occupant. I find merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Customer Service Centre, though not a party to this Writ Petition, is directed to consider the application of the petitioner in the light of condition No. 3.2 of the terms and conditions of supply and take a decision on the petitioner's application for release of power supply, to the premises of the petitioner mentioned above, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner immediately thereafter.