M/s. Hyderabad paper Mills Pv,t Ltd v. 1. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances btated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing the impugned Notice vide Lr.No.SE/OP /SRD/SAO/HT/D.No.56812024-25 dt.11lOT12025 for recovery of dues of the previous owner M/s. Nagarjuna paper Mills under ROR Act and threatening to disconnect the power supply to the Petitioner's company ItI/s.Hyderabad paper Mills as illegal, arbitrary, violation of provisions of Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act beside violation of the Articles 19(1Xg) and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the impugned Notice Lr.No.SE/OP/SRD/SAOiHT/D.No.56812024-25 dt.11-07.2025 issued by the Respondents for recovery of dues of the previous owner M/s.Nagarjuna Paper Mills under ROR Act. NO:'l 78 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay impugned Notice Lr.No.SE/OP/SRD the proceedings of /SAO/HT/D.No .568t2024-25 d|',|1.07.2025 issued by the Respondents for recovery of dues of the previous owner M/s.Nagarjuna Paper Mills under ROR Act' pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. IAN F 2025 E-FfrTII=f{ll

1. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd, Repd by its Chairman and Managing Director, Noorudiiin, S/o Mohd. Qamuruddin, Aged 50 years, Mint ComPound, HYderabad

2. The Chief General Manager (Rev), TGSPDCL, Hyderabad 3. The Superintending Engineer, TGSPDCL Operation Circle, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District

4. The Divisional Engineer, TGSPDCL Operations, Patancheru, Sangareddy District

5. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, TGSPDCL Operations, Patancheru, Sangareddy District

6. The Senior Accounts Officer, Circle Office, TGSPDCL, Sangareddy District ...Petitioners/Respondents D M/s. Hyderabad paper Mills Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director, Plot No.1,2 and 3, Phase-V, Patancheru Village and Mandal, Sangareddy Diskict-SO2 319. ,. RespondenUWrit Petitioner Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order dated 31 .7.2025 passed in I A No. 1 of 2O25 in W P No. 22585 of 2025, in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUMAN KUMARI CHOUBEY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N .SREEDHAR REDDY (SC FOR TGSPDCL) The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.22585 of 2025 Dated: ao.L2.2025 M/s. Hyderabad paper Mills Pvt. Ltd The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. & five others ...Respondents ORDER: The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned Notice uide Lr. No. SE/ OP/ SRD / SAO/ HT/ D.No.568 / 2024 -25 dated I r.oZ .2025, whereby the respondents sought to recover the alleged arrears pertaining to the previous owner, M/s. Nagarjuna Paper Mills, and threatened disconnection of power supply to the petitioner's company, M/s. Hyderabad Paper Mills. The said action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and violative of Articles 19(l)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. ""/ 2

2. Heard sri suman Kumari choubey, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and sri N. sreedhar Reddy, rearned standing counser for TGSPDCL, for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject property i.e. Plot Nos.r,2 and.3, phase-v, patancheru vilrage and Mnadal, sangareddy District was purchased in a public auction conducted by Andhra pradesh state Financial corporation (ApSFC) in the year 2oo4 through a registered sale deed which clearly recorded that the said propert5r was free from all encumbrances. He submits that the petitioner was granted a fresh power connection with a new service number and that at the time of providing suppl5r, the respondents themselves certified that no arrears were pending on the said service. He submits that the alleged dues of the previous consumer cannot be fastened on the petitioner after nearly two decades, especially when no claim was raised during the liquidation process and the same is barred by limitation under Section 56(21of the Electricity Act. He, therefore, seeks quashing of the impugned notice and protection from coercive action.

4. Learned standing counsel for TGSpDCL, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner's electricity service is treated as a link service in terms of clause ro of Regulation No.7 of 2oL3 and l therefore, the petitioner is liable to clear the arrears outstanding against the previous owner. He submits that as per the applicable electricity regulations, dues attached to a service can be recovered lrom the purchaser of the premises. He further justifies issuance of the impugned notice and submits that the impugned demand raised against the petitioner is in accordance with the law.

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already deposited 4O% of the impugned demanded amount, and the petitioner undertakes to pay the balance amount in six (6) equal monthly installments, to be paid on or before the 25th of every month. The said undertaking is placed on record.

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: I The petitioner, in accordance with the undertaking given, shall pay the remaining impugned demanded amount in six (6) equal monthly installments on or before the 25tt of every month.

11. The respondents shall not initiate coercive steps, including disconnection of the power supply, so long as the petitioner 4 adheres to the installment schedule Court. undertaken before this \ \ In the event the petitioner fa,s to comply with the said instaflment schedure, the respondents are at riberty to proceed in accordance with law, incruding taking coercive steps for recovery of the dues. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPYII P.C. SU ASSISTANT LEKHA DEVI \ SECTION OFFICER Distribution Company To,

1. The Chaiiman a nd Ma of Telangana Ltd, tMint 2' The chief Generar [vanager (Rev), TGS'DCL, Hyderabad 3' 3!fi;ffiff,3i:1li:? Ensineer, TGSPDCL operation circle, Sangareddy, 4' Ilirfll"',r'onar Engineer, TGSpDCL operations, patancheru, sangareddy 5' 3*A?:Sd,t$Divisional Ensineer, TGSPDCL operarions, patancheru, 6' The senior Accounts officer, circre office, TGSPDCL, Sangareddy District 7. ONC CC tO SRI. SUMAN KUI\IARI CHOUBEY, AdVOCAIE [OPUC] 8. ONE CC tO SRI. N. SREEDHAR REDDY (SC FOR TGSPDCL) TOPUC] 9. Two CD Copies DAN BS M, HIGH COURT DATED i1011212025 -"'! s ORDER WP.No.22585 of 2025 C) s5 rtB $6 +.- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS