1. The Chief General lvlanager v. Abbineni Narayana Rao

Order

Heard Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. Nishtha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2. The oetitione rs aooroached the Court ekinq oraver as under: ".........to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature oF writ of certiorari by calling for the records and to quash the orders dated 09.09.2024 in Appeal No. 20 of 2A24-2\ and Appeal No. 23 of 2024-25 as arbitrary illegal, unjust and contrary to the law and facts oF the case and to quash Lire s.:me and pass........"

3. The case of the rret itioners in brief a s DEr th e averments made bv he oetitioners in the affidavit bv the t petitioners in support of the present writ petition, is as u nder: The 1't respondent has given his premises bearing House

No.5-9-285/12 on lease to one Mr. G.Ram Reddy in the year 2006 and the lessee Sri G.Ram Reddy had established a Pharma 4 Company in the name of M/s. tvleghana pharma ,lompany and has obtained a H.T.Service Connection bearing SC No.SEC1677, the said Service Connection was released on 28.1.2.2007 with a contracted maximum demand of 145 KVA under lt.T.Category_I and the said Mr.G.Ram Reddy, had defaulted in payment of the current consumption charges from the month of April,2Ol4, as the current consumption charges were not pai(l the service connection was disconnected on 01.04.2013 and lhe same was terminated on 31.08.2013, the dues as on date of disconnection were Rs.47,69,164/-. The 2n,r respondent had addressed the letter, dated 23.05.2074 to M/s. Meghana pharnra ro pay an amount of Rs.29,28,263/- which are due tor^rards current consumption charges and fuel surcharge adjustmer t for issuance of no due certificate. It is further the case of the petitioner:; that since M/s.Meghana Pharma had not paid any amoLlnts, petitioners initiated steps to recover electricity dues under ApSEB Recovery of Dues Act, 1984 and ApSEB Recovery of Dues Rules, 1985. Accordingly, Form-A notice was issued on L4.LO,ZOI4, Form-B notice was issued on 23.06.2015 and Form -C notice was issued on 22.03.2016,25.04.2016, and on 08.11.2021. Letters, dated

04.05.2023, 05.07.2023, 3LOL.2O24 were addressed to the , 5 District Collector under the Revenue Recovery Act for realization oF arrears by attaching the immovable properties for recovery of an amount of Rs.68,47,942.37/- including surcharge as on

37.07.2024. On 07.01.2017, one Mr. Anki Reddy, on 25.08.2020 one Mr. P.Bhaskar Reddy had submitted a representation for restoration of power supply issued in the name of M/s. Meghana Pharma in (P.Ltd.) under Sick Unit Revival Scheme and though the approval was granted by the Chief General Manager vide ietters, dated 06.02.2O17 and 12.02.2021 respectively for restoration of power supply under Sick Unit Revival Scheme subject to payment of the said amounts, but as the amounts were not paid, the power supply was not restored. As the arrears Were not paid a notice dated 13.06.2022 was issued to the 1st respondent to pay an amount of Rs.23,81,893/- due towards service connection bearing No. SC.No.HT SEC 1677 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice with a clear stipulation in the said notice that failing which the service connection bearing LT-SC.No.56004023 shall be disconnected by treating the same as link service as per clause 10 of regulation 7 of 2013. It is further the case of the petitioners, that the 1sl respondent had submitted a representation, dated 16.10.2022 6 requesting the petitioners to waive 50o/o of the clrarges and to restore the LT Power Supply, since the arrears were not paid the petitioners herein had initiated action to recover tlre same and the 1st respondent filed complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of TGSPDCL (Greater Hyderabad Area) for restoration of power supply to HT Servi:e Connection and also prayed for withdrawal of the arrea -s of service connection issued in the name of M/s.Meghana pharma. The CGRF vide order dated 07.06.2024 had dismissed the complaint filed by the 1't respondent very clearly observing that the owner of the property is responsible to clear all the dues of the service connection issued in the name of the tenant. The CGRF passed the said order, dated 07.06.2024, taking into cons;ideration the judgments of the Apex Court (i) TSSpDCL Vs. Srigdhaa Beverages reported in 2020 Vol.6 SCC 404 (ii) K.C.Ninan Vs. State of Kerala (Civil Appeal No.2019-2110 of 2004) and also ciause 8.4 of the General Terms and conditions of :;upply. The 1.r respondent also filed another complaint before l:he Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for restoration of the L.T Service Connection bearing SC No.S60004023, which was disconnected by treating the same as link service and the Consurner Grievance Redressal Forum had returned the said complaint. Aggrieved by ( 7 the said orders oF the CGRF, dated 07,06.2024, the 1't respondent had preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent bearing Appeal No.20 of 2024-25 and also filed the 2nd appeal No.23 of 2024-25 against the rejection of the second complaint. The 2nd respondent therein atlowed the appeal preferred by the 1't respondent by final orders, dated O9.O9.2024 by setting-aside the final orders, dated O7.06.2024 in CG. No.291 of 2O2g-24 and had held that the l't respondent is the owner of the premises and is not liable to pay the arrears of electricity service connection issued in the name of M/s. Meghana Pharma Company as the 1't respondent is not the consumer as per Section 2 (15) of the Electricity Act, 2OO3 and had set-aside the demand notice for payment of the CG Charges. Aggrieved by the orders of the 2nd respondent, dated O9.O9.2O24 the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A. The relevant ortion of the imouqned order of the 2nd resoondent, da ted 09.o9.2024 in Aooeal No .2O ot 2024-25 and ADDea I No.23 ot 2()24-25 is extracte d hereunder:-

32. In the present case, having regard to the facts and circumstances and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1 supra) the appellant herein being 8 owner of- the subject premises is not liable to pay the arrears of electricity of M/s. Meghana pharrra Company as he is not its consumer and sJch OemanJ ,io" Oy il.," respondents from the appellant is illegal. Lit<e-wise tne Service Connection of the appettani"is'noi tn" link connection of the subject Service Connection. 33. The learned Forum has returned the complaint on 0,7.08.2024 without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. At this stage it ir' n".".rury r-o-.ere. to tt,,e proviso to Clause 2.37(d) of the nugrfuiion which is important, which is as under:_ "Provided un less the given an o that no grievance shall be rejected in writino Complainant or Association of pu.ron, nu, O"ui pportunity of being heard.,, -!ubmitting This proviso makes it mandatory that no grievance shall be rejected or returned in writing unte.s in"-.omplaint or association of persons has bee-n given the-opportunity oF rn-the presenr case, in respect of Appeat No. 3:,i? l""S:Ol zr ut zuz.+-25 tt appears.that no opportunity was given by the learned Forum to the appelia'nt for arguments. On this ground also, the impugned Award/order of the learneJ Forum is ti;6te i;le set aside. The learned Forum has not considered thl material on record. properly and came to the in_correr:t conclusion. Accordingly, I hold that the demand of in" i,=rpondents to pay the arrears of electricity.charges oi ,t7r. l,l"Snunu Pharma Company from. the appef f ani is iilegal, the domestic Service Connection or tni:'appeiLnf is not the tink service to M/s. Meghana pharma b;;t;;,r. Hence the Award in C.G.No. Zgt/2023_24ZSu.r-"J.ruOud Circle dt.09.06.2024 and the Award/Order Iiabie to be set aside and tne appellini i:; entiUed for reconnection of his Service Connection without payment ot arrears of M/s. Meghana .pha-rma Company. inese points are. accordingly decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. -it.O)'.6a.ZOZq "t.., POINT No. (v)

34. In view of the findings on point Nos. (i) to (iv), the appeals are liable to be allowed. 9 ,// // RESULT

35. In the result, the appeal No. 20 of 2024-25 is allowed. The Award in C.G.No.291/2023-24/Secunderabad Circle dt.09.06.2024 is set aside. The demand of the respondents to pay the arrears of electricity charges etc., of M/s. Meghana Pharma Company from the appellant (owner of the subject premises) is illegal. The appeal No. 23 of 2024-25 is allowed. The Award/order in Lr.No. Chairperson/CGRF-II/Complaint Return I D.No.367/24-25 dt.07.08.2024 is set aside. The Service Connection No. 56004023 of the appellant is not the link service to M/s. Meghana Pharma Company. The appellant is entitled for reconnection of his Service Connection without payment of arrears of M/s. Meghana Pharma Company. The respondents are directed to reconnect it. The respondents are directed to comply with this common Award within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the Award and file compliance report B. The relevant portion of the Award oassed bv the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum II (Greater Hvderabad Area) (In short "the Forum") of Telanqana State, Southern Power Distribution Comoany Limited (in TGSPDt:I 'l in CG.No.291 2023-24 / Serr r ndera h:d Circle. dated O7 o6 .2O24 dismissed the comDlaint filed bv the 1't respondent herein is extracted hereunder:- L2. In view of the above, it is necessary to refer the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Judgement which was passed in Civil Appeal No. 1815 of 2O2O (arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. t9292/2018) between M/s. Srighdaa Beverages and Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited which is as follows. ( 10 a' A. "That electricity dues, where they arer statutory in character under the Electricity Act and as pr:r the terms & conditions of supply, cannot be waived in view of the provisions of the Act itself more specifically Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in pari materia witlr Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910), and cannot partake the character oF dues of purely contractual nature . B. Where as in cases of the E-auction notice in question, the existence of electricity dues whether quantified or not, been specifically mentioned as a li,rbility oF the purchaser and the sale is on AS IS WHERE IS WHATEVER THERE IS AND WITHOUT RECoURSE BASIS,,, theTe can be no doubt that the liability to pay electricity dues exists on the respondent (purchaser) C. The debate over connection or reconnect.ion would not exist in. cases like the present one where both aspects are covered as per clause 84 of the Gene,ral Terms & Conditions of Supply. 16. In view of the aforesaid legal position, which has emerged, we are of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are accordingly sr:t aside while opining that appellant No.1 rvould be well within its right to demand the arrears due of the last owrrer, from the respondent-purchaser, " 13 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Judgement which was passed in Civil Appeal No. 2109_2110 of r0O4 between KC Ninan and Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors, and the conclusions of the Judgement are as follows "1. Conclusions

328. The conclusions are summarised below: 9. fhe duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 2003 Act is not absolute, and is subject to the such charges and compliances stipulated by the Electric Utilities as part of the application for supply of electrir:ity; b. The duty to supply electricity under Sect on 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 11 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities; c. For an application to be considered as a 'reconnection', the applicant has to seek supply of electricity with respect to the same premises for which electricity was already provided. Even if the consumer is the same, but the premises are different, it will be considered as a fresh connection and not a reconnection; d. A condition of supply enacted under Section 49 of the 1948 Act requiring the new owner of the premises to clear the electricity arrears of the previous owner as a precondition to availing electricity supply will have a statutory character, e. The scope of the regulatory powers of the State Commission under Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to stipulate conditions for recovery of electricity arrears of previous owners from new or subsequent ow ne rs; f. The Electricity Supply Code providing for recoupment of electricity dues of a previous consumer from a new owner have a reasonable nexus with the objects of the 2003 Act; 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 2003 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 72 offered for sale with regard to any liability fo- the payment of dues, like service charges, electricity dues for power connection, and taxes of the local authorities; and j. In the exercise of the jurisdiction under Art cle 142 of the Constitution, the Electric Utilities have been rlirected 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.,,

14. Clause 8.4 of General Terms & Conditions of Supply of Hon'ble TGERC is as follows: "8.4. Transfer of Service Connection The seller of the property should clear all the dues to the Company before selling such property. If the seller did not clear the dues as mentioned above, the (_ompany may refuse to supply electricity to the premiser; through the already existing connection or refuse to give a new connection to the premises till all dues to the Company are cleared. "

15. As per the above ludgments' and Clausr: 8.4 of GTCS, it is pertinent that the owner of the property is whole responsible to clear the dues of the electricity service connection in case of tenants who are deferulters. In the instant case, the owner of the premises is requesting for electricity supply to the premises in which dues are pending. Hence the Forum felt that the abcve judgement implies to the present case as such he is liable to pay the arrears and other charges if any, if he wants to utilize the electrical supply in the same premises. Thererfore the point (i) is answered accordingly in favour of th€r Respondents and against the Complainant 5 Clause 8.4 of General Terms Conditions of su D Dlv of TGERC is extra cted hereu nd er: - "8.4. Transfer of Service Connection i I i i I I 13 The seller of the property should clear all the dues to the Company before selling such property, If the seller did not clear the dues as mentioned above, the Company may refuse to supply electricity to the premises through the already existing connection or refuse to give a new connection to the premises till all dues to the Company are clea red. " DISCUSSION AND CONCLU SION: The learned standinq counsel ADDEarino on behalf of 6 the Detitioners maintv outs-forth the followinq submiss lons:- i) The orders passed by the 2"d respondent are contrary to law and against the provisions of General terms and conditions of supply and hence, is liable to be set-aside. ii) The 1"t respondent being the owner of the subject premises is responsible to pay all the dues in respect of the service connection and the said fact was not considered by the 2nd respondent. iii) The 2nd respondent failed taking into consideration the judgments relied upon by the CGRF in its orders, dated 07.0,6.2024 dismissing the complaint filed by the 1't respondent before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for restoration of power supply to HT Service 74 Connection and for withdrawal of the arrears of service connection issued in the name ol M/s. Meghana pharma iv) The 2nd respondent failed to give credence to Clause 8.4 of General terms and corrditions of supply which states that it is the responsibility of the owner to clear ail the dues and if the said amount is not paid, the petitioner may refuse to give connection to the already existing service connection or to provide a new service connection. Th d co ns referredsu bmi sions contended needs obe alloweda sDr ved fo r. b d n e t the Writ Petition 7 el arn dc ounsel DDE r inq on be official res Dond No. 1 herein m in lv followino submissions:- alfoft he fo ht he Dut- I i 1 i) The Award impugned, dated O9.O9.2O24 passed in Appeal No.2O of 2024-25 and Appeat No.23 of 2O24-Zs warrants no interference since it is a detaaled speaking order passed after giving reasonabte opport unity to the petitioner herein to put-forth a case and hence, the present Writ Petition fited by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 15 ii) The 1't respondent was not aware of the atleged dues for an amount ot Rs.47,69,164/- by the M/s. Meghana Pharma and petitioner never brought to the notice of respondent No.1 until the disconnection of service of the 1't respondent. iii) The petitioners herein having failed to take appropriate steps for recovery of the alleged arrears from M/s. Meghana Pharma whose whereabouts are known to the petitioners herein strangely proceeded against the l't respondent herein who is the owner of the subject premises for recovery and the same is illegal. iv) There is no privity of contract between the 1"t respondent and the petitioners herein so as to compel the l"t respondent to pay the amount due from M/s. Megha pharma who is the lessee of the subject premises leased out by the 1"t respondent herein who is lessor /owner of the subject premises. v) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1"t respondent placed reliance on the judgment dated

11.O8.2O15 passed in W.P.No.27O83 of 2OL7 in particular para No.7 there under and also the Division Bench judgment, dated 11.12.2O14 passed in W.A.No.345 of 1b I 2O14 reported in 2014 SCC online Madras L22g3 in Clara Ammal Vs. The Chariman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Madras 2 and another in support of the case of the 1.t respondent. Based on the aforesa id submisslo n s, the learned 1 con tended that the Award imouoned assecl bv the 2nd r a nd n da o o24 a A No.2O of 2 4-25 o.2 of2 4-2 rran snoin erfer her f e e Wri e in lim isC CONCLUSION:- 8 u lat st IU qmen f N reDo ed in 2023 LiveL w(S ) 453 tn 45 36 L7 Nin V s of El Boa and others Dass ed in Civil A Deal Nos.21 O9 and 211O of oo4 o 2 e r Il7.ln Iight of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the electricity utilities can create a qhar(le by framing subordinate legislation or statutory conditidns of suppty enabling recovery of electricity arrears from a subsequeni transferee. Such a condition is rooted in the importance of protecting electricity which is a public good. public utilities invest huge amounts of capital ana infrastructure in providing electricity supply. The failure or inability to recover outstanding electricity dues of the premises would I I ) i L/ 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 consumers.

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 of the 2003 Act. Accordingly, while the u nder bar of llmitation 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. 56 2

145. In Srigdhaa Beverages (supra), this Court was considering an auction sale under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securitv Interest Act 2 002.67 The Court analysed Clauses 24 and 26 of the auction notice, which stipulated an "as is where is" sale with respect to all statutory dues and absolved the authorised officer of all liabilities for any charge, encumbrances and dues, including electricity dues. It concluded that the auction purchaser was "clearly put to notice" since there was a specific mention of the quantification of dues of various accounts including electricity dues. On the liability oF the past owners to bear electricity dues when the sale is on "as is where is" and existence of electricity dues is specifically mentioned, this Court "SARFAESI Act" categorically held that the auction purchasers were bound to inspect the premises and provide for the dues in all respects. This Court observed: 1B "16.2. Where, as in cases oF the E-auction notice in question, the existence of electricity dues, whether quantified or not, has been specifically mentioned as a liability of the purchaser and the sale is on "AS IS WHERE IS, \{/HATEVER THERE IS AND WITHOLIT RECOURSE BASIS", there can be no doubt that the tiability to pay electricity dues exists on the respondent (purchaser).,,

9. IU d Th ent at Dara No. 328 a re extr cted h reu er: -

316. UnderBeldattpnl .4.2 of the WB Etectricity Supply Code, the licensee is entitled to recover il- e outstanding dues of the previous owner from the new a r-rd su bseq uent owner iF there is a nexus between the previous owner and the new consumer. R ulati n 4.6.7 provicles that there shall be a deemed termination of agreement if the power supply to any consumer remains disconnected for a continuo us period of 180 days. Regulation 4.6.4 overrides other p rovisions of the WB Electricity Supply Code as it conta ins a non-obstante clause. Under Requ lation 4 6.4, a new consumer can be given a service connection only if the outstanding dues against the same prerr ises is cleared along with late payme nt surcharge. 1 ru lof the aforesaid obs rvatio nsof the m r t s t wn rof e e s r r d e cti n s sl, r .Th c h tth n ei throuqh civil rem res t a o.1 r! ar ar €Lerc lse ts statuto rv I I I i I I i I I I I I t i I 19 n.iwer un tlol. the condi f al n c zrf cr r n nlr,r and frr!,f h A r f h A clusions v ud men verv clearlv indicate that a condition of suDDlv enacted under Secti on 49 of the 1948 Act reouires the new owner of the Dremises to clear t e electricitv arrea rs of the us own r onditi n electrici suDDIv. This Court oDanes that the 2nd reso ondent passed the imouqned order, dated 09.O9.2024 allowinq the aDDeal Dreferred bv the 1't resoondent bv settinq aside the fin al rders, dated O7,O6.2024 in CG No.29 ot 2023- r ond n h r n consumer as D er Section 2 (15) of the Electricitv Act, 2OO3 and had set aside the demand notice for avment of CC charoes obs rvinq as under at Dara Nos. 32 & 33:-

32. In the present case, having regard to the facts and circumstances and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1 supra) the appellant herein being owner of the subject premises is not liable to pay the arrears of electricity of M/s. Meghana Pharma Company as he is not its consumer and such demand made by the respondents from the appellant is illegal. Like-wise the Service Connection of the appellant is not the link connection of the subject Service Connection.

33. The learned Forum has returned the complaint on 07.08.2024 without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. At this stage it is necessary to refer to the proviso to Clause 2.37(d) of the Regulation which is important, which is as under:- I 2_0 "Provided that no grievance shall be reject:ed in writing unless the Complainant or Association of pers;ons has been given an opportunity of being heard.', This proviso makes it mandatory that no grie,/ance shall be rejected or returned in writing unless the complaint or association of persons has been given the opportunity of being heard. In the present case, in respect of Appeal No. 23 of 2024-25 it appears that no opportunity was given by the learned Forum to the appellant for submitting his arguments. On this ground also, the impugned Award/order of the learned Forum is liable tc be set aside. The learned Forum has not considered tho material on record properly and came to the in-correr:t conclusion. Accordingly, I hold that the demand of the respondents to pay the arrears of electricity charges etc., of tvlls. Meghana Pharma Company from the appellant is illegal, the domestic Service Connection of the appellant is not the link service io M/s. Meghana pharma Compan y. Hence the Award in C.G.No. 29t/2023-24/secunde rabad Circte dt.09.06.2024 and the Award/Order dt.Oj.OB.2024 are liable to be set aside and the appellant is entifled for reconnection of his Service Connection witho -rt payment of arrears of M/s. Meghana pharma Company. These points are accordingly decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondents

11. Thi s Court oDrnes that the conclusi n a rrived t Dara No. 2 is con trarv to the obs rvations of the Aoex Cou rt in K.C. Ninan Vs, Keral State Electrici v Boa ( referred to and e tmo qned A ard in sofara s allowino Aoo 2f)24-25 warrants int rference bv this Court in the racted above) and th erefore. No.2 rit P ccord in the Award in CG No.291 / 2023- 27 I I 24lSecunderabad circle, dated O9.O6.2O24 is uoheld and demand of the petitioners herein to Day the arrears of the electricity charoes etc., of M/s. Meohana Pharma comoanv from the 1st resoondent i.e., owner of the subiect premises is held leqal and in accordance to law. L2, The p]ea of the 1"t resDondent that the 1st respondent is not a consumer as Der Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act and therefore, not liable to pav the arrears of M/s. Meohana Pharma Comoanv in res Dect o the subiect t service connection who is the consumer is not tenable and is reiected in view of the ob ervations of the Aoex Court reDorted in 2O23 Livelaw (SC 453 in b ) etwee n K.C Ninan Vs. Kerala State of Electricitv Board a nd ot ers oassed in h Civil Aooeal Nos.21O9 a d 2110 of 2OO4. dated

19.05.2023 since law includes not only the statute but also the judgment of the Apex Court which is the law of land under Article L4t ol the Constitution of India.

13. As oer Clause 8.4 of General terms and conditions of of TGERC v r Court oDines that since as Der the said clau e the seller of the orooertv is bound to clear all the dues of the comoanv 22 before sellinq such oroDertv, the owner is al so dutv bo nd to clear a lt the electricitv d ues of the tena nt/les e. L4. Therefore, this Court opines that the Award of the 2nd respondent dated Og.Ag.2O24 passed in Appeal No.2O of 2O24-25 in so far as altowing Appeal No.zO of ZOZ4-25 is concerned and setting aside the Award in CG No.29L/2o23-24lSecunderabad Circle dated 07.06.2024 is illegal and the same is set aside.

15. This Court opines the conclusion arrived at para No.33 by the 2nd respondent is in accordance to raw since admittedly as borne on record, the compiaint filed by the 1't respondent before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for restoration of the LT Servict: Connection bearing SC.No.S6OOO4O23 which was disconnected by treating the same as link service of fGSPDCL on 07.O8.2O24 (in short .. the Award/Order) returning the complaint on the ground that it had alreacly passed an Award in CG No.29L/2l23-24,/Secunderabad circle on 07.06.2024 and dismissing the same without providing an opportunity of hearing to the l"t respondent contrary to Clause 2.37 (d) of the regulation which clearly indicates ) i ! I I i I \ \ that no grievance shall be rejected in writing unless the complainant or Association of persons had been given an opportunity of being heard and admittedly in the present case, the 1"t respondent was not heard prior to the complaint being returned on (i7.Og.2Ot24 and therefore, the 2nd respondent was right in allowing appeal No.23 of 2024-25 preferred by the l"t respondent herein and hence, there is no illegality in so far as the 2nd respondent in allowing Appeal No.23 of 2024-25 is concerned vide its Award dated 09.O9.2024 passed in Appeal No.23 of 2OZ4_ 25 and the same warrants no interference by this Court.

16. Takin into consideratton:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions put-forth by both the learned counsel on record, c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the I't respondent, d) The impugned order of the 2nd respondent, dated 09.09.2024 in Appeal No.2O of 2024-25 and Appeal No.23 of 2024-25 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Award passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum II (Greater Hyderabad Area) (In short "the Forum") of Telangana State, Southern 24 ';:v.+ r., Power Distribution Company Limited (in slrort 'TGSPDCL") in CG.No.291l2023-24/Secunderabad Circle, f) Clause 8.4 of General Terms and Conditions of supply of TGERC (referred to and extracted above), g) The judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2023 Livelaw (SC) 453 in between K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State of Electricity Board and others passed in Civil Appeal Nos.21O9 and 2tLO of 2OO4, dated 19.O5.2023 (referred to and extracted above). The Writ Petition is partly allowed. The: impugned Award dated O9.O9 .2O24 ot the 2nd respondent in so far as allowing Appeal No.2O of 2024-25 warrants interference by this Court in the prcsent writ petition and accordingly the same is set aside and the,Award dated 09.09.2O24 ot the 2nd respondent in so far as allowing Appeal No.23 of 2024 warrants no interference by this Court. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ i t I I { I I i Petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.H \ l One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE StH (For His Lordship's Kind perusal) .S. GOWRI SHANKAR srRrANr necrsrRll,= SECTION OFFICER EPALLI NANDA To '1 . 1'l L.R. CoPtes 2 11-e Affeirt l\ltu/ Dalhi Un$$l Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, iustice and ComDe0y . -.-ir-l Buildings, Hyderabad.

3. The Secretary. Teiangana Advocates Association Library, High Court 4. One CC ro SRt N SREEDHAR REDDY (SC FOR TELANGANA 5 One CC to IUs NTSHTHA Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies TRANSCO) Advocate IOpUCI M- SA BS -==-:: oB {HE Si4 /€ ( 24JU[l ffi t' 1 t -\ - * ,/ . _ ':': )r' HIGH COURT DATED:01 l05l201s /L J o L' ORDER . o WP.No.34539 of 2OZ4 PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @* ,t eU 6