ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Petitioner is a registered Society established with an intention to promote / protect the interests of owners, who purchased plots in HMDA layout in Yapral namely, M/s Golf Pride Homes, commencing from 2010. The grievance of petitioner is in relation to the demand made by the respondent authorities who have allegedly conducted an inspection in the premises of M/s Golf Pride Homes, at the behest of the unofficial respondent, who was none other than the Ex-Secretary of the Society. It is stated that Petitioner Society is beneficiary of two service connections bearing SC No. 1304 19 02355 and SC No. 23060215. Service Connection which is the subject matter is SC No. 1304 19 02355. As per the 4th respondent, the said connection falls under Category LT-III and was originally issued in the name of the builder M/s Swarnandhra Housing Projects (Beneficiary-I). In relation to the above Service Connection, the 4th respondent is alleged to have conducted an inspection and found that there were certain illegalities in the manner in which the said connections were to be put to usage and also that the Society has duly switching between two service connections i.e., Category-III to Category-ll. It is also alleged that energy was illegally consumed during the period from 08.03.2007 to 31.05.2022 under a wrong category, as a result of which the Corporation suffered losses to the tune of Rs. 5,29,366/- (Rupees Five Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Six Rupees). Hence, assessment-cum-back-billing notice was issued by the 2nd respondent vide Lr. ADE/OP/SAINIKPURI/MATS/D.No. 725/22-23, dated 25.06.2022. The complaint of petitioner is that the alleged inspection conducted by the 4th respondent was not done in the presence of any of the members of the Society and the consequential issuance of assessment notice was also not within the knowledge of petitioner Society or its members as the assessment notice was sent to M/s Swarnandra Housing Projects, an entity which is now defunct and is not in operation anymore. Further, the assessment notice and its intimation was not served on the proper address, i.e. on petitioner Society, thereby depriving their right of exercising legal remedies in time. However, on receiving the information, petitioner approached unsuccessfully the appellate authority – 7th respondent Superintending Engineer, Habsiguda, duly depositing Rs.1,65,000/- but however, the respondent authorities have not issued any proper acknowledgment. Further, the assessment notice and its intimation was not served on the proper address, i.e. on petitioner Society, thereby depriving their right of exercising legal remedies in time. However, on receiving the information, petitioner approached unsuccessfully the appellate authority – 7th respondent Superintending Engineer, Habsiguda, duly depositing Rs.1,65,000/- but however, the respondent authorities have not issued any proper acknowledgment. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner Society is stated to have approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which rejected the Application vide order dated 30.06.2023, on the ground that SOP No. 06 of 2021 is pending on the file of the PDJ-Cum-Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri District. Since the very affairs of the Society were in dispute, the forum did not venture any further in adjudicating the dispute which involved fixing the liability of payment of amounts, in relation to the assessment for back billing. Consequently, Appeal No. 23 of 2023 was preferred before the Ombudsman - 11th respondent, who vide Award dated 10.08.2023, rejected the Appeal, directed the appellants before it to pay the balance amount in 12 monthly equal instalments. The said order is in challenge in the present Writ Petition. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner Society Sri R. Anurag submits that the respondent authorities, right from inception of proceedings, have proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the facts. Though it has been time and again contended before the authorities that connections were not misused and not put to commercial purpose by the Petitioner society, respondent authorities failed to appreciate the same, thereby making the entire process a lopsided and an empty formality. According to the learned counsel, when the 4th respondent himself admitted that inspection report contained errors and it was a mistake on his part, fixing the liability onto the Society would amount to miscarriage of justice. So far, petitioner Society is paying bills regularly without any arrears, as such, it is not a case of accumulated arrears of payment. On the contrary, it is the official respondents who ought to have refunded the already collected amounts, paid to prefer the appeal before the authorities, to prove their bona fides, contends the learned counsel. It is submitted that the respondent authorities are now threatening to disconnect the power connections and trying to hamper the smooth functioning of the Society more specifically, trying to deprive the residents from accessing basic amenities like water supply, etcetera. 3. It is submitted that the respondent authorities are now threatening to disconnect the power connections and trying to hamper the smooth functioning of the Society more specifically, trying to deprive the residents from accessing basic amenities like water supply, etcetera. 3. At the admission stage, this Court, after hearing learned counsel on both the sides and on perusal of the impugned order, particularly the observations made at para 25, directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps against petitioner, pursuant to the impugned Award for a period of four weeks which was subsequently, extended from time to time. 4. The 4th respondent - Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Sainikpuri, TSSPDCL filed the counter stating that SC. No. 13041902355 under LT-III Category which stands in the name of Swarnandra Housing Projects was inspected on 11.05.2022 by the Divisional Engineer, Detection of Pilferage Wing and found that power supply was being utilized for drawing water for gated community purposes. As the said activity falls under commercial category, as per the tariff orders issued by the TSERC, back-billing was raised under LT- II Category [Non Domestic] for the period from 08.07.2007 to 31.05.2022 and the amount that was to be recovered was arrived at Rs. 5,29,366/- hence a demand notice dated 25.06.2022 was issued to petitioner - Association to pay the said amount. It is stated, petitioner suffered two orders from the competent forums appointed under the Electricity Act, 2003 and he is liable to pay the balance sum of Rs. 2,65,000/- along with surcharge up to the date of payment. It is stated that all the allegations made by petitioner are not specifically dealt with herein, are denied 5. The unofficial 9th respondent filed the counter on the ground that petitioner has no locus standi as it is not a registered Association. Petitioner has camouflaged the name cleverly by adding (society and residents) to the registered name, to use the Certificate issued to Golf Pride Homes Welfare Society (which is a registered society) as per the official records of the Registrar of Societies, therefore is liable to be prosecuted for impersonation. It is stated that petitioner is trying to circumvent the orders of this Court in LA.No. 1 of 2020 in W.P.No.20268 of 2020 which had categorically stated that these rival group members of Society shall not claim as office bearers. It is stated that petitioner is trying to circumvent the orders of this Court in LA.No. 1 of 2020 in W.P.No.20268 of 2020 which had categorically stated that these rival group members of Society shall not claim as office bearers. According to this respondent, Writ Petition has to be dismissed as an unregistered association is neither a Citizen as a person nor a Juristic person as a Body corporate who are competent to claim legal or fundamental rights. Appellant cannot be termed as a complainant under Rule 3 of 2015 nor can he be termed as a consumer as per the Electricity Act, 2003 as the meter is in the name of a defunct partnership firm (Swarnandhra Housing Projects-SC No. 13041902355) and is installed in a public park which is being used by some unscrupulous persons to draw water from a unauthorized bore well, pump it into a abandoned overhead tank and the water is distributed by unauthorized pipe lines to collect monies. It is also stated that the official account of Golf Pride Homes which is in SBI is frozen and subject matter of Writ Petition No. 20268 of 2020. 6. Petitioner replied to the counter filed by the 9th respondent denying the allegation that with an intention to mislead the court, they had cleverly added (society and Residents), however it is stated that the same is an output of inadvertent typographical error and not otherwise. They filed amendment petition to rectify the said mistake. According to petitioner, the unofficial respnent had placed only material which portrays them in bad light, however, petitioner Society states that in the impugned Order of Ombudsman dated 10.08.2023, it clearly details and discusses the same issue which was raised by the 9th respondent as the same was also raised before the Hon'ble Ombudsman ie. Respondent No. 11 and in the said discussion the Hon'ble Ombudsman has observed that "Electricity is a basic necessity and is an integral part of the right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India. The purpose of this Authority is to resolve the grievances and disputes between the electricity consumers and their electricity service providers in a summary way, free of cost and also expeditiously The main goal of this Authority is to ensure fair and efficient resolution of consumer complaints and to promote transparency and accountability in the electricity supply industry. The purpose of this Authority is to resolve the grievances and disputes between the electricity consumers and their electricity service providers in a summary way, free of cost and also expeditiously The main goal of this Authority is to ensure fair and efficient resolution of consumer complaints and to promote transparency and accountability in the electricity supply industry. The Hon'ble High Court in the order dt 23.11.2020 in WP No.20268 in 1.A.No 1 of 2020 gave liberty to the rival parties to deal with payment of electricity Appellants are also included in the rival parties. Therefore having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, beyond the definition under the Act and the Regulation it can be concluded that the appellants have locus standi to file the Complaint before the Forum and also appeal before this Authority" In view of the same, since the Ombudsman having once held that petitioner Society is rightly represented by its Secretary, the Courts now cannot relook into the said issue as the same is also pending adjudication before the District Courts by way of Society OP. Even otherwise, the larger issue is to be decided is about back-billing by Electricity Department which has an impact on all the other residents in the form of monetary burden which they have to incur including the 9th respondent. 7. Heard learned Standing Counsel Sri R. Vinod Reddy for the respondent TSSPDCL. 8. From a perusal of the material available on record, admittedly, subject service connection was originally released in the name of M/s Swarnandra Housing Projects, Phase-II, Yapral. It is also an admitted fact that there are several cases pending before various Fora as to who are the office bearers of M/s Golf Pride Homes Welfare Society. Since the very affairs of the Society were in dispute, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum did not venture any further in adjudicating the aspect which involved fixing the liability of payment of amounts, in relation to the assessment for back billing. In the further Appeal, the Ombudsman observed that this Authority is not going to touch such controversy by directing any particular party to pay the amount; and it is only deciding as to the legality of the impugned notice demanding to pay the amount. In the further Appeal, the Ombudsman observed that this Authority is not going to touch such controversy by directing any particular party to pay the amount; and it is only deciding as to the legality of the impugned notice demanding to pay the amount. Apart from that, this Court in Writ Petition No.20268 of 2020, by order dated 07.12.2020, held that payment by itself shall not confer any right on Respondents 4 to 12 therein as office bearers which issue is required to be decided by the appropriate forum or in the appropriate proceedings. It is also made clear that there is no embargo made by this Court in the order so as to receive the subscriptions, monthly or otherwise offered due payable by the members over the funds utilised among the members as per law. Since the said Writ Petition is still receiving consideration at the hands of this Court, it is not proper to go into the said aspect now in this Writ Petition. 9. As could be seen from the prayer of the Writ Petition, the present dispute is with respect to back-billing. Before the Forum, the case of the 9th respondent is that meters were being operated by Mr. Nagpal and Mr. Rayudu without any authorisation by any member or general body of M/s Golf Pride Homes Welfare Society; the meters are on non-existing person / company being operated by a third party. In the inspection report, the officials Sri B. Franklin, DE/DPE/RR East and Sri P. Muthaiah, ADE/OP/Sainikpuri stated that at the time of inspection, they had mentioned the incriminating points stating that water tanker by mistakenly instead of overhead water tank as there is no tanker filling activity and they are not using tankers for any commercial purpose to any others. They further found that there is a switch between two services for changing over of load. It is therefore, clear that power supply from the service connection was being utilised for drawing water and utilising the same for gated community purposes i.e. Golf Pride Welfare Society; as the said activity falls under commercial category as per the tariff orders issued by the TSERC, backbilling was raised under LT-II category for the period from 08.07.2007 to 31.05.2022, hence, the said demand raised cannot be said to be illegal. 10. 10. In the light of the same and also in view of the fact that petitioner Society suffered orders from the competent Fora appointed under the Electricity Act, 2003, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the orders impugned. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 11. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 12. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.