THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1180 of 2010 Date:07.07.2010 Between: Gulam Yazdani, Hyderabad. ………..Petitioner. AND The Assistant Engineer (Operation) APCPDCL, Hyderabad and another. ………Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1180 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Gulam Yazdani assailing the action of the respondents in refusing to sanction the service connection to his shop No.20-2-533, Hussainialam, Hyderabad on the ground of an objection being raised by one of the three co-owners as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner along with two others namely; Gulam Subhani and Gulam Jeelani purchased the property under a sale deed dated 30.1.1984. As on the date of purchase, the said premises had two connections vide Nos.M2-150 and M2-151. The petitioner made an application for separate connection for the shop No.20-2-533. The respondents received the application. The request of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents in view of the objection raised by one of the co-owners namely Gulam Jeelani. Accordingly, they issued proceeding on 15.4.2009. The text of the proceeding reads as hereunder: “With reference to the above, the information required under RTI Act 2005 is herewith furnished as follows: “The service connections to shop No.20- 2-533, Hussainialam as per the application of Sri. Gulam Yazdani vide C.No.1069730 dated 02-04-08 could not be released as Sri.Gulam Zilani, Co-owner, has submitted his objection which leads to a civil dispute.”” The action of the respondents in not releasing the service connection is assailed in the writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri O.Manohar Raddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Transco takes notice on behalf of the respondents on 28.1.2010. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is one of the co-owners of the premises and as he is in exclusive occupation of portion of the premises, an application has been submitted seeking a separate service connection. A further submission has been made that there is an obligation on the part of the respondents to accede the request of the petitioner when the petitioner fulfilled all the requisite formalities as required under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Much emphasis has been laid on Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which reads as hereunder: 43.Duty to supply on request:- (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply: Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution license shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appellate Commission. Provided further that in case of village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appellate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.” It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is in exclusive possession of a portion of the premises, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to have a separate service connection. As on this day no material has been placed that the petitioner is in exclusive occupation of the portion of the premises. Therefore, the proceedings issued by the respondents rejecting the request of the petitioner for separate service connection cannot be ranked as arbitrary. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application enclosing the ownership certificate issued by the competent authority seeking for supply of electricity. When such application is made, the respondents have to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:07.7.2010 mrb