WP/25577/2006 of Himagiri Flat Owners Association (Regd Vide Regn.No. 872 Vs A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited on 27 December 2006

ORDER:

Himagiri Flat Owners Association filed the instant writ petitionseeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3(officials of Central Power Distribution Company Limited {CPDPCL}) innot transferring the service connections in favour of individual flatowners and further declaring the notice dated 21.11.2006 issued to thefourth respondent threatening disconnection of power supply to twentyone (21) flats as illegal and arbitrary.

The petitioner is espousing the cause of the owners of flats inHimagiri Saroja Hills constructed by M/s.Sphinx Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The fourth respondent is General Power of Attorney (GPA) Holder ofthe said company. Be that as it is all the members of the petitionerassociation purchased flats in the apartment block except 21 flats outof 95 flats. Though they purchased the flats under valid sale deeds,the service connection given by the respondent to each flat was nottransferred in the name of the flat owner. The bills are being regularlyissued in the name of the fourth respondent in respect of each flat andall the owners who purchased the flats are paying the electricity billswithout demour. However, it appears that the fourth respondent leasedout 21 flats to different persons and there are arrears in respect ofthose 21 service connections. In connection with the demand ofarrears notice was issued to the fourth respondent on 21.11.2006 bythe third respondent informing that these 21 service connections willbe disconnected if the arrears of electricity bills are not paid. Apprehending disconnection of other service connections also, thepresent writ petition is filed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the decision of Division Bench in Ramu Towers Residents Welfare Society v Superintending Engineer, APSEB, Hyderabad[[1]]insupport of the contention that the respondents cannot disconnectpower supply to the owners of the flats if the arrears relate to the periodprior to the purchase. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, SriG.V.Raghava Reddy, appearing for CPDCL submits that unless anduntil proper application is made for transfer of ownership of the serviceconnections duly enclosing the requisite documents and payingrequisite fee, applications cannot be considered. He also submits thatabout 75 flat owners of Himagiri Saroja Hills have not so far madesuch applications. He placed reliance on Regulation 5 of the A.P.Electricity Regulatory Commission (Licensees’ Standards ofPerformance) Regulation, 2004 (hereafter called, Regulations)promulgated by APERC in terms of the provisions of Section 57 of theElectricity Act, 2003 (the Act, for brevity). He also placed reliance onCondition 13.3 and Appehdix-1 to the General Terms & Conditions ofSupply (GTCS) made by CPDCL in support of the contention.

Conclusion

Regulation 5 of the Regulations requires the licensee(distribution company) to give effect to transfer of ownership, change ofcategory and conversion of existing service from LT to HT and vice-versa within the time limit prescribed thereunder. In the matter oftransfer of ownership, the licensee is required to give effect to suchtransfer within seven days of receipt of application with necessarydocuments and prescribed fee. Condition 13.3 (iv) of GTCS read withColumn 11 of Appendix-1 would show that a person requiring transferof service connection has to furnish certain documents like proof ofownership, indemnity bond and demand draft with requisite fee. Admittedly, none of the members of the petitioner association hasapplied with Regulation 5 of Regulations read with Condition 13.3 ofGTCS. Therefore, the action of the respondents 1 and 3 in noteffecting transfer cannot be faulted. However, there cannot be anydispute that if the fourth respondent failed to pay arrears of electricitycharges in respect of 21 flats (21 service connections), the members ofthe petitioner association, who are owners and are regularly payingelectricity bills even though the bills are raised in the name of thefourth respondents, cannot be subjected to any coercive disconnectionwithout notice to them. This position is not seriously disputed.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to themembers of the petitioners association to make appropriateapplications within a period of one week from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. As and when such applications are received,respondent No.2 shall effect the transfer as per Regulation 5 of the Regulations. If any of the arrears are due from the respective flatowners after the date of purchase of the flats, they shall be liable to paythe amount.

The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, isaccordingly disposed of. No costs.

_____________

December 27, 2006. (V.V.S.RAO,J)NOTE:Issue order copy by02.1.2007.(By order) YS

[1]1997(6) ALD 114 (DB)