Andhra Pradesh HC Sets Aside APEPDCL's Silent Rejection of Electricity Connection, Orders Fresh Processing in Two Weeks
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that marking an application “Permanently Rejected” on an online portal without assigning any reasons violates natural justice and the mandatory duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has set aside the Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited's (APEPDCL) permanent rejection of a Category-II electricity service connection application filed by Kadagala Srinivas Rao, a resident of Parampeta Village, Vizianagaram District, who sought the connection to operate a small flour mill for his livelihood. Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, sitting singly, found that APEPDCL's 6th respondent — the Assistant Engineer at the 33/11 KV Sub-Station, Regidi Amadalavalasa Mandal — had marked the application as "Permanently Rejected" on the online portal on 20 September 2025 without stating any reason, and had thereafter ignored a written representation dated 20 February 2026. The court directed APEPDCL to process the application afresh within two weeks and issued broader directions to the State Government to institute quarterly monitoring of electricity connection applications across all distribution licensees in Andhra Pradesh.
The Application and Its Unexplained Rejection
Kadagala Srinivas Rao is the owner and possessor of property bearing D.No. 1-95, Main Road, Parampeta Village, Regidi Amadalavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Intending to set up a small flour mill to earn his livelihood, he obtained a No-Objection Certificate from the Panchayat Secretary of Parampeta Village and filed an application bearing Registration No. NSCREG03556196 on 20 September 2025, paying the requisite fee, for a Category-II electricity service connection with the 6th respondent Corporation.
On 10 October 2025, APEPDCL personnel arrived at the petitioner's premises with village linemen to install the service connection meter. Mid-installation, the personnel stopped and left with the meter, reportedly owing to local interference. The petitioner then made repeated enquiries with APEPDCL offices, receiving no response, until he discovered through the Corporation's online portal that his application status had been changed to "Permanently Rejected."
The petitioner submitted a written representation dated 20 February 2026 to the 6th respondent, with copies to senior APEPDCL officials, seeking the reasons for the rejection and requesting reconsideration. Postal tracking records (Ex. P-6) confirmed delivery. No response followed, and no counter-affidavit was filed by APEPDCL before the court despite being given reasonable opportunity to do so.
APEPDCL's Oral Defence and Its Evidentiary Frailty
In the absence of a counter-affidavit, the learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for APEPDCL argued orally that when Corporation personnel visited the premises, they found an existing electricity connection bearing No. 133320N142000140, which had originally been issued on 17 January 2019 in the name of Smt. K. Madhura Meenakshi, the petitioner's wife. She said that connection had been disconnected for non-payment of current consumption charges and that despite several phone calls to the petitioner, no payment had been made, leading to the non-extension of service.
Counsel for the petitioner countered with an additional affidavit filed in I.A. No. 2 of 2026. She pointed out that the connection in question stood in the wife's name, not the petitioner's. She further submitted that the 6th respondent itself had, vide Notice Rc.No. 201/2024 dated 12 July 2024, removed that connection after the petitioner's wife requested a transfer, with a specific assurance that a new connection would be provided. The last payment of electricity charges by Smt. Madhura Meenakshi was made on 26 July 2024, and no connection had existed since 12 July 2024. The petitioner's counsel argued that any charges being shown as outstanding against a disconnected and physically removed service connection were baseless.
Justice Kuncheam noted that APEPDCL had not produced any copy of outstanding bills or any communication addressed to the relevant persons. He also applied the settled principle from K.S. Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner of India — that the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons stated therein, and cannot be supplemented by fresh grounds raised through affidavits or oral submissions at a later stage. Since APEPDCL had never cited arrears as the reason for permanently rejecting the application on the portal, the oral defence could not prop up the impugned action.
The Statutory Framework: Section 43 and the APERC Regulations
The court examined the statutory architecture in detail. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 casts a mandatory duty on every distribution licensee to supply electricity to the owner or occupier of any premises within one month of receiving a complete application. Sub-section (3) imposes a penalty of up to Rs. 1,000 per day for each day of default.
Clause 5.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS) approved by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) tracks Section 43, requiring supply in accordance with the APERC (Licensees' Standards of Performance) Regulation, 2004. Clause 5.2 mandates that the Corporation verify the application and enclosed documents upon receipt and issue a written acknowledgement. Clause 5.2.6 requires that consumers seeking supply for industrial or commercial purposes obtain a No-Objection Certificate from the local authority — a requirement the petitioner had fulfilled through Ex. P-4.
APERC Regulation No. 6 of 2024, published in the gazette on 28 August 2024, prescribes time standards under Schedule II. For rural areas, Item IX mandates release of a new connection within 15 days of receipt of the complete application and payment of all charges, with compensation of Rs. 100 per day for each day of default payable to the individual consumer.
The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Chandu Khamaru v. Nayan Malik and Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 314, which held that Section 43 imposes a statutory and mandatory obligation and that supply cannot be denied on the basis of private disputes or third-party objections. It also drew on Brihanmumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (2015) 2 SCC 438, which described the duty under Section 43 as a universal service obligation.
From Dilip (Dead) through LRs v. Satish & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 810, the court noted the principle that electricity dues do not attach to the property itself and cannot be automatically enforced against a different person, though a licensee may legitimately insist on clearance of arrears as a lawful condition for granting a fresh connection. The court also referenced K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2023) 14 SCC 431 for the position that electricity supply is premises-centric and that new applicants may be required to clear past dues linked to the property before a fresh connection is granted.
Two decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court itself were cited: Smt. Villuri Sirisha Rani v. State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P. No. 28943 of 2024, dated 16 December 2024), where the court held that the mandatory duty to supply electricity cannot be denied merely on grounds of title disputes or alleged unauthorised construction; and B. Munirathnam v. Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (W.P. No. 7120 of 2024, dated 26 March 2024), where arbitrary delay in granting a connection was held to violate Articles 14 and 21.
Why the Absence of Reasons Was Fatal
The court treated the absence of reasons as a distinct and self-sufficient ground for setting aside the rejection. APERC's Consumer Rights Statement, as submitted by the petitioner's counsel, entitles an applicant to be informed of reasons for any rejection, to be afforded a personal hearing, to prefer an appeal, and to be given an opportunity to rectify deficiencies. None of these steps were taken.
Justice Kuncheam drew on the Constitution Bench decision in Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (1979) 4 SCC 642, which affirmed the Latin maxim Cessante Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex — reason is the soul of the law.
The court quoted extensively from Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, where the Supreme Court summarised the law on reasoned orders: quasi-judicial and even administrative authorities are required to record reasons, as reasons operate as a valid restraint on arbitrary exercise of power, facilitate judicial review, and form part of due process. The judgment identified recording of reasons as “virtually the life blood of judicial decision making.”
The court found that APEPDCL's act of simply displaying the petitioner's application as "Permanently Rejected" on its online portal, without any reasons, was not only illegal but was also a clear transgression of the principles of natural justice. Even if the application had been incomplete, the Corporation was duty-bound to communicate specific deficiencies in writing. Instead, it had done nothing — not even after receiving the petitioner's written representation of 20 February 2026.
Directions to the State Government
Beyond the individual relief, the court issued a systemic direction to the State Government. Observing that within a short span under the present roster, it had repeatedly encountered citizens from remote, isolated, and underdeveloped regions approaching the court under Article 226 seeking electricity connections for livelihood, Justice Kuncheam directed the 1st respondent — the State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary, Energy Department — to instruct all distribution licensees across the State to submit comprehensive reports every three months, containing particulars of the date of each electricity service connection application, processing time, and the final result. The State Government was then directed to review those reports and issue appropriate directions or guidelines to distribution licensees to fulfil the constitutional and statutory obligations under the Electricity Act, 2003, subject to ground realities and requirements.
Order
Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam disposed of W.P. No. 8103 of 2026 on 22 June 2026 with the following directions:
The permanent rejection by the 2nd respondent Corporation of the petitioner's application dated 20 September 2025 bearing Registration No. NSCREG03556196 was set aside.
APEPDCL was directed to process the application afresh, collecting any applicable charges, in accordance with Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the relevant rules, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
The 1st respondent, the State of Andhra Pradesh, was directed to instruct all distribution licensees to submit comprehensive quarterly reports on electricity connection applications, and to review and issue directions based on those reports.
No order as to costs was made. All pending applications stood closed.