Sankuri Mahendar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in providing electricity connection to the petitioner premises pursuant to the application made by the petitioner bearing Registration No.617192956981, Dt. 22-11-2019 on the ground of non-payment of past electricity arrears by the petitioners vendor i.e., predecessors in title as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, u nconstitutional and also seeking consequential directlon to the Respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for supply of electricity connection without referring to the payment of arrears by predecessors in title. lA NO: '1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co L direct the Respondents to consider the application of the p,r electricity connection pursuant to the application made by t Registration No 617192956981 , Dt.22-11,2019 without ref: of arrears by predecessors in title, pending disposat of the \v i.cumstances stated I may be pleased to titioner for supply of ,3 petition er bearing ring to the payment r.: petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. K.HEMALATHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI N.SREEDHAR il .DDY, SC FOR TGSPOCL The Court made the following: ORDER L N6K, J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE, STATE OF TELANGANA HYDBRAI]AD .THE HON'BI,E SRI JTJSTICE NAGESH BHEIIMAPAKA WRIT PETII-lON No.l897 of 2O2O OI't DECENIBER 202s Betrveen: SankLiri Mahendar Rao I . Tlie State of Telangana, and others AND Petitioncr ORDER: 'l l're petitioner is the owner of the propefty to an extent of Ac.0- l0 guntas (1210 square yards) in Survey No.204 ol- Nemaraqornula village, Bibinagar mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, having purchascd the same lrorn M/s Har'\,ana Steel Centers, vide registered Sale Deed No.6454 of'20 19. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he made an application to ihc 2'"1 respondent- TGSPDCL lbr new electricity connection on 22.1 I .20 t9, however, thc rcspondent-TGSPDCL has not taken any action to provlde new connection on tl're ground that there are electricity dues that have not been clearcd by M/s Haryana Steel Centers. It is the contention of the petitioner that the unpaid electricity dues, if any, by the previous owner ol the property cannot be imposed on the petitioner and such clearance of electricity dues cannot be a pre-condition for ploviding new electricity connection. 7 -- v,,p 1897 2020 NBK, ]

2. Heartl Ms. K. Hemalatl'ra, learned counsel for the pc itioner; and Mr. N Sreedhar Reddy. lealned Standing Counsel lor the res: rndent-TGSPDCI- Perused the lecord.

3. At the hearing. lcarned Standing Counsel submit longer rcs inlcgru. in vieu, o1- the judgurent o1'the Hon'bl K.C.Ninan vs. Kerala Statc Electricity Boardr, rr '' tl-rat thc issue no Supreme Clourt ir-r :rein the Hon'ble Suprerle Court lrelcl as lirllo\\,s: "l. conclusions

328. The conclusions are summarised below: a. The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 20 ,:l Act is not absolute, and is subiect to the such charges and compliance; tipulated by the Electric Utilities as part of the application for supply of t,l ctricity; b. The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with -r owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplr between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, wl is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only to those parhcular premises for which electricity is sought anr the Electric Utilities; ,;pect to the ,rs a synergy n electricity {vlth respect provided by c. For an application to be considered as a 'reconnection', thc pplicant has to seek supply of electricity with respect to the same pren i :s for which electricity was already provided. Even if the consumer is th€ r rme, but the premises are different, it will be considered as a fresh conn : don and not a reconnection; d. A condition of supply enacted under Section 49 of the 194I \ct requiring the new owner of the premises to clear the electricity r -ears of the previous owner as a precondition to availing electricity supJ ,, will have a statutory character; e. The scope of the regulatory powers of the State Comr ssion under Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to stipulate c nditions for recovery of electricity arrears of previous owners from new o subsequent owners; 12023 SCC OnLine SC 663 3 wp_1897 2020 NB(,] f. The Electri€ity Supply Code providing for recoupment of electricity dues of a previous consumer from a new owner have a reasonable nexus with the obiects of the 2003 AcU g. The rule making power contained under Section 181 read with Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to enable the regulatory commission to provide for a statutory charge in the absence of a provision in the plenary statute providing for creation of such a charge; h. The power to initiate recovery proceedings by filing a suit against the defaulting consumer is independent of the power to disconnect electrical supply as a means of recovery under Section 56 of the 2O03 Act; i. The implication of the expression "as is where is" basis is that every intending bidder is put on notice that the seller does not undertake responsibility in respect of the property offered for sale with regard to any liability for the payment of dues, like service charges, electricity dues for power connection, and taxes of the local authorities; and j. ln the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the constitution, the Electric Utilities have been directed in the facts of cases before us to waive the outstanding interest accrued on the principal dues from the date of application for supply of electricity by the auction purchasers."

4. In light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supretne Court in K.C. Nintn (supra), it is settled law that the authorities under the Electricity Act, 2003, can in.rpose a precondition requiring the new owner of the premises to clear the electricity arrears of the previous owner in order to avail electricity sltpply.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, in view o1- the settled [ar,r' in K.C. Ninan (supra). No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed' /ITRUE GOPY" sD/- .'DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G ,ECTtoN OFFICER Bu*dinss' To, 1 2 J I::,",::i:i'o,fo.l"?T;li?i,.il""i:'r,"BT,T[l]"'{U' nsecretariat southe rn Powe r D istributio n com panv IIH 35 :+Islrllx u,113: $fl Pi"",$or', rhe S uperi ntend ils qryl ComPanY Ltd, Telangana s T,"rLor$3[1i%3]i3l;;f#hern P owe r Distribution

4. One CC to Ms. K.HEMALATHA, Advocate [OPUC.| 5. One CC to SRI N SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSFT CL IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the j ate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies BSR PSK HIGH COURT DATED: 0111212025 ORDER WP.No.1897 of 2020 :.' a( :) \) 1( t ar\v \e "l i.! .t '4 i..L, t* DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS K! ttl,lzc