The High Court · 2025

Petition under Artrclc 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the atfidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ. ordcr or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the demand letter No. SE/OP/HBG/SAO/AAO (HT)/JAO/D. No. 286/20 rjated 04-06-2020 and subsequent rejection order dated 2O-O8-2O2O of the 2nd Respondent demanding exorbitant amount towards surcharge. penalty and monthly charges of 21 long months (i.e. from Nov. 2016 to July, 2O18) even after actual disconnection of power supply on 19-06-2016 and further threatened drsconnection of the power supply to the Petitioner company as iltegal, arbitrary, unjtrst and violative of principles of natural iustice and contrary [o the terms and conditions of agreement dated 29-05-2018 and consequently direct the Respondents not to disconnect the power supply to the Petitioner Cornpany HTSC No. HBG2996 IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petitiorr uncer Section 151 CPC praying that in lht circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the writ petition, the High lourt may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to disconnect the power jupply to the Petitioner Company HTSC No. HBG2SS6 pending ciisposal of the aI ove writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. L PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N SREEDHAR REDD Y (SC FOR TELANGANA TRI\NSCO) The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.16O32 of 2O2O The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a bottling unit in the public auction held on

27.09.2017 by obtaining loan from the syndicate Bank. The power supply to the said bottting unit was disconnected in the year 2016. Soon after purchasing the above said bottling unit the petitioner made a request on 28.10.2017 for restoration of power supply against HT SC No.HBG 2996, however, the respondents refused to restore the power supply on the ground that there are dues by the previous owner. In this connecLion, a writ petition vide W.P-No.36988 of 2Ol7 was filed by the petitioner and the said writ petition r,vas disposed on 17 .11.2017 directing the petitioner to rnake an application as per the Regulations to the competent authority. Aggrievecl by the same the respondents filed W-A.No-258 of 2018 but same was dismissed on 30.04-2O 18 b1, relylng on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in M/ s. Isha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Boardr and Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited vs. Gopal Agarwal2. ' reeslz; scc e+s '? Civit Appeal No.l918 ot 2016 2 NBK, J \\'p 16012 2020 Challenp,ing the judgment of the Divisiorr Bench the respondt:nts have filed appeal before the Honourable Supreme Courl v: de appeal No- 18 L5 of 2O2O, which u as allowed on Ol.O6.2Ct2O on the ground that in E-auction sale notice dated

25.05.2Ct17 ir, was specihcally mentioned by the ranker that the sale is 'zrs is where is, whatever there is and w;thour recourse basis" arrd held that the respondent thereunder (the petitioner herein) as liable 'to pay electricity dues exists on respondent purchasr:r'.

2. 'I'he grrevance of the petitioner in the pres€.nt u'rtt petition ls that the respondent No.2 issued a deman.l t'roticc datecl O4.A6.rC)2O io make payment of not only dues p:r.varble b-y lhe previous owrer on the date of disconnection da ed i.1.i0.2016 armounting tc, Rs.11,62,OO3/- but also added rni rintunt charges ior 21 rnonths commencing from November, 20l,t Lo juty, 2Oi8 and further aclded Rs.26,OO,352.14 towards slLrchargc ,ii. l.Sok per month from O1.O7.2018 to O1.06.2020 rft er adjr-rsting sccurity deposit of Rs.4,99,OO0/-. The petitione is cJrallenging the said impr-rgned notice in the present Writ Peti ion.

3. In repJv to the above averments of tht affidar"'it, the respond(rnt i,io.2 hled detailed counter anci rvrrile reiying on J NBK, J lvp 16032 2020 Clause 5.9.4.3 of GTCS mainly contended that the amount claimed by the respondent compaly is in compliance with the General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS) and departmental rules, and hence the petitioner cannot find fault with it. It is further contended that HT agreement was terminated with effect from 20- 16.2O18 i.e., the date of completion of the period of agreement as per clause No' 5 9 4 3 of GTCS and the dues payable (to a tune of Rs -7 5,26 '344 '47 paise) was intimated. The petitioner did not raise any objection regarding the dues/recoverable amount before the Honourable Supreme Court ald thus, the demand of Rs. 1,03,48 '723 '65 paise as on 31.O7.2O2O towards a[[ dues payable to the Discom is legal and valid as per the provisions of the trlectricity Act, 2003, General Terms and Conditions of Supply and the Tariff issued by TSERC and the regulations framed thereunder. It is further submitted that a notice was issued to the predecessor of the petitioner calling upon it to arrange payment of Rs.7O,35,931/- along with the surcharges @t l-5% per rnonth for termination of Agreement on 3O 03.2O17. It is submitted that the petitioner opting to purchase lhe unit for Rs.9,18,65,0OO/- along with the outstanding dues of local Government (Property tax, water sewerage, electricrty bills etc amounting to NBK, J u.p _16032 2020 Rs.83,17,1512/- and thereby it indicates that th,: petitioner was very much itware of the existence of the elect ricity dues. the petitionr:r having stepped into the shoes of the original owner is liable tc pa1, alt the dues in respect of the sen..ice connection. The petitioner having suffered an order I assed by the Honour:rble Supreme Court is again trying tc create second round ol litig,ation to avoicl the payment of the vrrlid dues to the respondent company and finally prayed to dismis,s the petition.

4. Hr:ard roth sides and perused the record. 5- Acmrrt:dl_v the petitioner purchased the s;ick uniL in the publrc iLuctr,rn on 28.IA.2017 from his preriecessor. .i.he respondr:nts trave disconnected the power suppll to the unit on 19 1 0.2C I (r :is thc predecessor of the petitioner lrriled to pay the due amounts. As per the decision of the Honor_trable Suprernc Court in Tclangana State Southertr power Distribution Company Lirnited and anothers, the liability tc, ptry electricrty dues exis;ls ol the purchaser.

6. As righrly contended that the learned c.)unsel ibr the respondents the petitioner did not raise any obje,.:tion regardrng the d ues / recoverable amount before the Honout.able Supreme t AtR loto sa tr,;, I t ) NBK, J wp t60i2 2020 Court. Even in the letter daLed, 20.06.2020 submitted by the petitioner to the respondents, it is categorically admitted that quantum of recoverable amount was not subject matter of the litigation in the litigation. Though the respondents issued the impugned notice calling upon to pay the arrears from November, 2OL6 Lo July,2O18 and Rs.Ll,62,003/- i-e.; arrears not paid by the predecessor of the petitioner, in view of the principle taid down in the above said decision and since the petitioner purchased the unit of his predecessor in a public auction on 27.O9.2017, the petitioner is liable to pay the arrears Lhat were not paid by his predecessor and also the charges from November, 2016 (subsequent month of date ol disconnection of power supply) to September,2OlT (date of purchase of unit by the petitioner in the public auction), Therefore, the petitioner shall remit Rs.f 1,62,OO3/- -i.e., the arrears that were not paid by predecessor of the petitioner. and also the arrears as mentioned in the impugned notice from November, 2016 to September, 2Ol7 to the respondents within one (Ol) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7 . With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 NBK. J wp 16032 2020 \ To, A.s a sequel, ttre miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stald :losed r;D/- ASS . VIJAYA LAXMI T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER 1- The Managing Director, Telangana State Southem Povrcr Distribution Company' ttdi, Vidyuth Soud ha, Khairtabad, Hyderabarl

2. The Superintending Engineer (Operations)' Hubsiguda Circle, Uppal Cross Roads, Hyder:rbad,

3. The Divisional Engineer (Operations), Keesara Divisiorr, Medcal-Malkajgiri District.

4. One CC lo SFi.l. L PRABHAKAR REDDY Advocate [O 5. One CC lo SRl. tl SREEDHAR REDDY (SC FOR TEL,\NGA.NA TRANSCO) )UCl toPUCl

6. Two CD (lopie,s KKS GJP \K HIGH COURT DATED:16107'12025 -/:'-' -- - ''-'- ,z'-zl - * tt - -' ;, "':- ^.\ -l ..-. - "' ' .- -.. ORDER WP.No.16032 oi 2A20 ) I _; i -i.. i ? stP 2!25 .\ DISPOSiNG THE WRIT PETiTION WITHOUT COSTS ce6€d a *,.,