Telangana High Court Orders Review of Electricity Disconnection Over Alleged Unauthorized Use

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

Ahmed Nawaz Alladin & Nestaway Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Telangana & Others (High Court of Telangana)

Writ Petitions No. 1402 of 2025

Date: 20th January 2025

Key Takeaways

• The court emphasized the importance of following principles of natural justice before taking punitive action like disconnecting electricity.
• The electricity board must consider the property owners’ response and give them a personal hearing before making a final decision.
• The case highlights the need for due process under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, especially when allegations of unauthorized use are made.
• The court did not immediately restore electricity but ensured the petitioners’ grievances would be heard promptly.

Issue

Did the electricity authorities violate the principles of natural justice and constitutional rights by disconnecting electricity without properly considering the property owners’ response to allegations of unauthorized use?

Facts

• Parties:
• Petitioners: Ahmed Nawaz Alladin (property owner) and Nestaway Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (property management company).
• Respondents: State of Telangana (Principal Secretary, Energy), MD of TGSPDCL, and various electricity board officials.
• Background:
• The property owner rented out several flats in Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, using Nestaway’s platform.
• On 09.12.2024, the Assistant Divisional Engineer (ADE) issued provisional assessment orders, alleging the flats were being used for commercial purposes (shared accommodation) but billed under a residential category.
• Electricity was disconnected, and the owner was accused of unauthorized use under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
• The petitioners submitted a detailed response on 07.01.2025, requesting restoration of electricity, but the authorities did not act on it.
• Aggrieved by this inaction, the petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court.

Arguments

Petitioners

• The disconnection was illegal, arbitrary, and violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
• The authorities did not follow the principles of natural justice—no proper notice or hearing was given before disconnecting electricity.
• The petitioners had submitted a timely response, which was ignored.
• The disconnection deprived them and their tenants of their fundamental right to electricity.

Respondents (Electricity Board)

• The disconnection was based on findings that the property was being used for commercial purposes (shared accommodation) while billed as residential, which is unauthorized under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
• The petitioners were given an opportunity to respond and could have paid the assessed amount or objected as per the procedure outlined in the provisional order.

Key Legal Precedents & Provisions

• Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003:
• Deals with unauthorized use of electricity and the procedure for assessment and disconnection.
• Principles of Natural Justice:
• The court reiterated that before taking punitive action (like disconnection), authorities must give the affected party a fair opportunity to be heard.
• Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India:
• Article 14: Right to equality before the law.
• Article 19(1)(g): Right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
• Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to electricity as an essential service.

Note: The judgment does not cite specific case law names but relies on statutory provisions and constitutional principles.

Judgement

• The High Court did not immediately order restoration of electricity.
• Instead, it directed the 4th respondent (Divisional Engineer) to consider the petitioners’ detailed response dated 07.01.2025, which had already been acknowledged.
• The court ordered that the petitioners be given a personal hearing and that their grievances be considered in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice.
• The decision on restoration of electricity must be communicated to the petitioners within one week from receipt of the court’s order.
• The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

FAQs

Q1: Did the court order immediate restoration of electricity?

A: No, the court did not order immediate restoration. It directed the electricity board to review the petitioners’ response and give them a fair hearing before making a final decision.

Q2: What was the main legal issue?

A: Whether the electricity board violated the principles of natural justice and constitutional rights by disconnecting electricity without properly considering the property owners’ response.

Q3: What should the electricity board do now?

A: The board must consider the petitioners’ response, give them a personal hearing, and then decide on the restoration of electricity within one week.

Q4: What law did the authorities use to disconnect electricity?

A: Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which deals with unauthorized use of electricity.

Q5: What rights did the petitioners claim were violated?

A: Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(g) (right to occupation/business), and 21 (right to life, including essential services like electricity) of the Constitution of India.

Q6: What happens if the electricity board does not act within a week?

A: The judgment requires them to act within a week; failure to do so could lead to further legal action by the petitioners.