High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 3 The Central Power Distribution Company A.P., Limited, Rep. its Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Red hills, Hyderabad. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Medak District at Sangareddy. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,, Operation Circle, Patancheru, Medak District.

4. 4.P. State Finance Corporation, represented by, Senior Branch Manager, Ramachandrapuram Branch, 22-95 Reddy Corirplex, Lingampally CircIe, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction one in the nature,of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in demanding the petitioner herein to pay the electricity dues payable by the previous owner as arbitrary illegal and contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and issue a consequential direction directing Respondents 1 to 3 herein to supply power to the petitioner unit bearing H-T. service No.MDK-031 forthwith with out insisting on the payment of dues arrears and service line charges of the previous owner. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201O(WPMP. NO: 10582 oF 2010) 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 modifythe interim direction passed on dt.29-0'l-2010 in WPMP NO.37933/2009 in WP No. 2929012009 to supply power to the petitioner unit bearing H.T. service No. MDK-031 forthwith without insisting on the payment of dues, arrears and service. one chargers of the previous owner pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. l.A. NO: 2OF 2010(WPMP. NO: 13040 OF 2010 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 issue a direction directing the Respondents 1 to 3 herein to supply power to the petitioner unit bearing H.T. Service No. MDK-031 forthwith without insisting on the payment of dues, arrears and service line chargers of the previous owner, if necessary to collect the arrears of electricity charges only from the 4th respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 37933 0F 2009) 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 direct Respondents 1 to 3 herein to supply power to the petitioner unit bearing H.T. service No.MDK-031 forthwith with out insisting on the payment of dues, arrears and service line charges of the previous owner pending disposal of the above writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017O1ruMP. NO: 2193 OF 2O17l Between:

1. The Central Power Distribution Company A.P., Limited, Rep. its Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Red hills, Hyderabad.

2. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Medak District at Sangareddy. 3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,, Operation Circle, Patancheru, Medak District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND 1 Hi"..[fi"*-gTft b.,,3Jttihfxfl B:r,r"H".,,,+Sil.il:3:r,"3,"fl?; 'Al;,tifl 5,5[il::-cgp-1+ion'relresente.rr:.t"t:;X?iJl?:##:t- Ramachandrairr"fl ,ori;l:*;?e5Reddvco'n'ptei'iinga;*olriifliff ;' ...pETtTtONER/RESpONDENT No.4 Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim orders dated: 07-06-2010 in w.poMp.No.1 0582 0t 2o1o in W.P.No.29290 of 2009 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners: SRI AKKAM ESHWAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY (sc FoR TELANGANA TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M. HAMSARAJ, SC The Court made the foltowing: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.29290 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned standing counse! appearing on behalfof the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.Hamsaraj, learned standing counse! appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: ".......issue a writ order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mancjamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in demanding the petitioner herein to pay the electricity dues payable by the previous owner as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justlce and issue a consequential direction directing Respondents 1 to 3 herein to supply power to the petitioner unit bearing H.T. service No. MDK- 031 forthwith with out insisting on the payment of dues arrears and service line charges of the prevlous owner...."

3. It is specific case of the petitioners that the respondent Nos. 1to 3 are demanding the petitioner herein to pay the electricity dues pertaining to the petitioner's unit bearing H.T. service No.MDK-031 payable by the previous owner. 2 SNJ Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, petitioner filed the present Writ petition. R ED H E OR 4 Th un f d e n s tN .1 to a f a N s & are extracte her und r:-

3. In reply to para 3 it is submitted that the petitioner company has purchased the property of M/s. Hard Temp Steels Pvt Ltd through auction from State firiancij Corporation. fhe supply to petitionLr .ornpuny in tn" premises of M/s. Hard Temp Steels pvt Ltd was not released due to non payment of arrears pending by the petitioner company or previous owner M7s. HarO iemp Steels Pvt Ltd. Further, it is to submit that the petitioner company has applied for release of New LT Supply in the premises of M/s. Hard Temp Steels pvt Ltd which they claim to have purchased in auction from the State Finance Corporation. Due to non- payment of CC charges arrears, the supply was not reieased to the petitioner company i.e., M/s. k.R.R. Exim pvt Ltd. How ever the respondent company is entifled to recover the CC charges outstanding against the previous owner in terms of clause No.8.4 of the General Terms and Conditions of the supply approved by ApERC. 4. In reply to Para 4 it is submitted that for realization of CC charges dues from M/s. Hard Temp Steels pvt Ltd From-"A" notices under RR. Act was issued vide LR.NO.SE/Op/MDK/SAOIHT/D.NO. LOOT/2OOs, Dr: 09/02/2009. Further, Form-,,8,, notice under R.R.Act was issued to M/s. Hard Temp Steels pvt Ltd for the payment of Rs. 5,85,4t6/- towards principal amount plus Rs. 76,40,980/- towards surcharge for delay in payment. The Form C under Revenue recovery Act was / 3 addressed to the District Collector, Medak At Sangareddy vide letter No. 665/09, Dt: 05/10/09 for recovery of CC charges dues outstanding against M/s. Hard Temp Steels Pvt Ltd.

5. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court, dated 19.05.2023 reported in (2023) 14 SCC 431 in K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State Etectricity Board and Others and in particular para No.117 and 136 of the said judgment and contends,that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the said judgment.

5. The iudq ment of the Aoex Court. dated 19. os.2023 reoorted in (2023) 14 SCC 43 1 in K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State Ele tricitv Board and t hers and in oarticular Dara Nos.117 & 1 36 are extracted hereu nder: - Lll . In light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the electricity utilities can create a charge by framing subordinate legislation or statutory conditions of supply enabling recovery of electricity arrears from a subsequent transferee. Such a condition is rooted in the importance of protecting electricity which is a public good. Public utilities invest huge 4 amounts of capital and inFrastructure in providing electricity supply. The failure or inability to recover outstanding electricity dues of the premises would negatively impact the functioning of such public utilities and licensees. In the larger public interest, conditions are incorporated in subordinate legislation whereby Electric Utilities can recoup electricity arrears. Recoupment of electricity arrears is necessary to provide funding and investment in laying down new infrastructure and maintaining the existing infrastructure. In the absence of such a provision, Electric Utilities would be left without any recourse and would be compelled to grant a fresh electricity connection, even when huge arrears of electricity are outstanding. Besides impacting on the financial health of the Utilities, this would impact the wider body of consu mers.

136. We therefore, reject the submission of the auction purchasers that the recovery of outstanding electricity arrears either by instituting a civil suit against the erstwhile consumer or from a subsequent transferee in exercise of statutory power under the relevant conditions of supply is barred on the ground of limitation under Section 56(2) of the 2003 Act. Accordingly, while the bar of limitation under Section 56(2) restricts the remedy of disconnection under Section 56, the licensee is entitled to recover electricity arrears through civil remedies or in exercise of its statutory power under the conditions of supply. VlL lmplication of the sale of premises on "as is where is" basis, with or without reference to electricity arrears of the premises

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the said submission made by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of / 5 the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, dated 19.O5.2023 reported in (2023) 14 SCC 431 in K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others, but however contends that the petitioner may be permitted to proceed against the petitioner's owner for recovery of electricity bills due since the petitioner had purchased the assets (belonging to M/s Magna Hard Temp Private Limited) in a public auction conducted by the 4th respondent' and since they had executed a registered sale deed on 06.02.2006 in favour of the petitioner herein and delivered the possession of the same. 8, Takino int consideration: a) The aforesaid fact and circumstances of the case. The submission the I n aDDearlno on behalf of the oetitioner and learned standino counsel aooearino on behalf of t e resoondent Nos.1 to 3. I I 6 .. c T av men m e in the oun f he tN 1 vit fil don din a rtic ar 3 ar No &4 ref n d VE Th m tof CA Co d d1 05.2 reDorted i State El (2023) 14 cc 43 in K.C.Ni nan Vs. Kerala rrcttv oard a nd Others and !nD a rticular and artacular Dara Nos.117 & 136 (referred to and extracted above). A wev r rdino .theWrit Petition is dismissed. It as ours ue the remedies a are ava ilable to the Detatloner under law to oroceed aqa inst the Drevrous ow ners for recoverv of the out ndino bills oert ininq to the electricitv consu mption cha rqes. tlowever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY AS S ANT REGISTRAR /// //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to Sri Akkam Eshwar, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri N. Reedhar Reddy (SC for Tetanga-na TRANSCO) IOPUCI 3. One CC to Sri M. Hamsaraj, SCTOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies To, TJ BS % I:1 I I HIGH COURT DATED:1 310212025 ORDER WP.No.29290 of 2009 q J $E ST4;€ 1 1 I lilAn 2025 * * r.t) rr..c. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS {