Dismissed

Rahmath Banu v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC17 Apr 2023WP/5396/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to direct respondents to release a new electricity service connection despite outstanding dues of the previous owner. The court held the petitioner, as a successor-in-interest, is liable for dues and dismissed the petition with liberty to pay the required amount.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to make payment of arrears proportionately; upon payment, respondents are directed to consider issuing a fresh service connection.

Rahmath Banu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:53 96 0F 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

AND

¶9

Rahmath Banu, Wio. Mohammed Abdul Wahed, Aged about 33 years. R/o 1 e -2-23s t 1 3 t N6, C hand u ta I ea rao a ri, Bihi;;;'p;r., : rivJ"iio'ii _50d bHl,' ...PETITIONER

¶10

1 The State of Telanoana. Rep by its prl. Secretary, Department of Energy BRKP. Bhavan, Se-cretariat,' HviieLOrO.^{--. "rqr''svP}

¶11

1. Southern Power Distribut.l g'91q;;t-;f Tetangana Limited, 6_.1_50, Mint 3. compound, Hvdera bad _soo 063 R;pl it. _6;;;il;ri#o rr,ri"rgi;, j iii,.iiiilr. Southem Poiler Distriburion compa-riy oi ili;il;;iirited, operation its Circte, Assistant Divisional Enoineer.Charminar, Beside 11i1u[s rfir;"l;; tii,#;;o _sbo 6oz iiJi. ov

¶12

4 Southern Power Distributi5n gompany of Telangana Limited, Operation Circte, Chandutat Baradari Hyoerbbai _sOo OoZHiir]Ly its Assistanr Engineer.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS Pe tition under Atlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumst ances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mand amus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in rejecting the release of New Service Connection to the petitio ner against the Registration No. NR9042 3819507 dated 7tO2t2O23 as iilegal, arb itrary in violation of provision of Electricity Act, 2003 and against all setu e principles of law and consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondents to release new service connection of '1000 Watts applied vide registratio n No. NR90423819507 dated 7 12t2O23. IA NO: 10F 2023

¶14

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidrvit fired in support of the peiitio;, ine Hrgn court may o" p[rrJt" direct the Respondents to rerease new service connection of loob writ" ippriua vide registration No.NR904238ig5o7 dated 7r2r2023, pending oisposat-Ji tne Main Writ Petition.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR ENERGY counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: sRt R. vlNoD REDDY, sc FoR TSSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶17

WRIT PETTTIONNO .5396 0F 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

In this Writ^petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in rejecting the rerease of new service connection to the petitioner against the Registration No.NR90423819507, dated 07.02.2023 as illegat, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the Etectricity Act, 2003 and consequently to direct the respondents to set aside the rejection order and rerease new service connecrion of 1000 Watts applied vide Registration No. NR90423819507, dared 07.02.2023 and ro pass such other order or orders in the circumstances of the case.

¶20

2- Brief facts leadi.g to the tiling or the present writ petition are that the petitioner claims to have purchased r3l Square yards of land situated at Municipal No. l9_2_2 I 3/13/A, Chandulal Baradari, Hyderabad lrorn Mrs. Moharnrnedi Begum, Wo Mohd. eadeer Ahmed vzde (ggi5lgpscl Sale Deed bearing No. 145/2023, executed on 13.01.2023 at the Sub-Regisrrar Office. Dhood Bowli, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the Petitioner had made an application for providing

¶21

W.P.No.5396 ol202l

¶22

¶23

electricity connection vile Registration No. NR90423819507 on

¶24

07.02.2023. However, the same was rejected on the ground that the dues of the previous owner are not paid and therefore, new service connection cannot be given unless dues to an extent oi Rs.23,00,000r- are paid .- ^,' >,/ which'k"pending in respect of seven (7) individual OSL seruices in the said premises. Chaltenging the same, the present Writ Petition is fiied.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bonaJide purchaser who has paid the sale consideration lor the property and that she has conducted due Ciligence before the purcha.se of the property. He submits that the respondents have not raised any bitts for electricity connection against the previous owner and therefore, the respondents cannot now insist or require the petitioner to lrake payment of the consurrrption charges of the previous owner. He iurther submits that, since the respondents have not raised the bill, thcy are not cntitlcd to l'ecover the same from the subsequent owners. In supporl of this contention, he piaces reiiance upon the judgment ol the Hon'bie Supreme Courl in the case of Assistant Enginecr (D1), Ajmer Vidyut

¶26

W.P.No-5396 of 2023

¶27

¶28

Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. V/s. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjullar.

¶29

On a query from the Bench as to whether the petitioner is willing make payment of the dues of consumption charges proportionate to the extent of her holding, the leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not u,illing to pay the dues of the previous owner

¶30

The leamed Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relied upon the avennents made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the respondents have raised a demand against the previous owner, who then had approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the Forurn, vide Orders dt.26.09.2022, held that the back billing issued by the respondents prior to the date of inspection is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be set aside. It further held that the respondents are entitled to claim the dues under HT Category by clubbing the services into single service for the total consumption from the inspection date i.e., 10.12.2020 and further that the bills of all services are still being issued under LT Category even though the services were to be ctubbed from the date o[ inspection and

¶31

I Civil Appeal No.l672 of'2020. dt. I 8.02.2020

¶32

W.P.No.5396 o12023

¶33

¶34

the respondents were therefore permitted to club the bills and a single bitl raised.

¶35

The leamed Standing Counsel submitted that the respondents have complied with the directions of the consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and have clubbed all 7 connections and final demand of Rs.22,86,385/- has been raised. It is submitted rhat the bill has been raised lor the period from 10. 12.2020 to August, 2022. r^t is stated that the said amount has not been paid till date. The leamed Standing clounsel submitted that as oer the clause 5.9.6 of th"c Gener.ai rernis and Conditions of Supoly. on termination of ser-vice of a consumer,, an applicant is treated as a fresh application for the purpose ol giving supply to the same premises when apptied lor and senuice connection shall be provi,Jed ii there are no ciues over the previous ser-vice connection. Further as per Clause 8.4 of the ceneral rer,rs arrcl Conditions of Supply, the seller of the property shall clear all dues and on laiiure to cio so, the respondent company may refuse to supply electricity to the premises through the already existing connecrion 0r refuse to provide a new connection. He submitted that the Hon,ble Suprer-ne Court in the case of Telangana State Southcrn power Distribution Company Limited and another V/s. Srigdhaa

¶36

W. P.No.5l96 ol'2023

¶37

¶38

Bcverages2 has held that electricity dues are statutory in character under the Electricity Act and as per the rerms and conditions of supply, they cannot be waived. It is submitted that the respondents are therefore entitled to take required steps to recover the dues by refusing to provide a new service cormection untilthe dues are paid.

¶39

The leamed counsel for the petitioner, however, placed on record the copy of the demand notice dt.27.12.2022 which was pasted on the wall of the petitioner's propefty.

¶40

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the previous owner of the propeny has not been made party to the present writ petition and therefore, the writ petition fails on this account itself. As per Section 2( I 5) of the E.lectriciry Act, 'consumer' means any person who is supptied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Govemment and includes any persons whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity. It is noticed that the petitioner is not a consumer of the respondents and it is the previous owner of the propefty who was the consumer. Therefore, the respondents would have to issue notice to its consumer, i.e., the previous owner of the property and the bill can also ' lzozos6^scc404

¶41

W.l'.No.5396 of 2021

¶42

¶43

be raised on the previous owner of the property in whose name the senice connection was given. As per the copy of the notice which^is supposedly pasted on the premises of the property Vide letter dt.27.12.2022, the consumer was due of Rs.23,96,965/-. Therefore, it is clear that the dernand has been raised against the previous owner of the propefty and the petiiioner being the successor-in-interest is also liable lor ztny of the liabilities of the previous owner. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the petitioner is not responsible for the dues of the previous owner

¶44

The^judgrnent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limitcd and another V/s. Srigdhaa Beverages (2 supra) rnakes it clear that the Electriciti,' dues are statutory in character under the Electricit-v Act and as per the terms and conditions of supply, they cannot be w'aived and cannot partake the character ofdues ofpurely contractual nature.

¶45

In the .judgment of Assistant Engineer (Dl), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. V/s. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the obligation to pay the arrears of consumption ol electricity would

w. P.No.5i96 ot202l

, I

anse when the bill is issued by the licensee company quantirying the charges to be paid.

¶50

ll. In this case, the previous owner oFthe property against whom the bill or demand is raised is not madc a party to this Writ pctition and therelore there is no averment confirming or contradicting the statement of the respondents in the counrer affidavit that the final bill has been raised.

¶51

[n view of the same, this Courr is ol the opirrion that tlte dues of the previous owner cannot be waived and the succcssors_in_intcrest o[ the said property are liable to make payrnent of the consumption charges of the previous owner proportionatel.v to rhe exteltt o(_thcir holding il their application for a new service connection was to be considcred bv the respondents

¶52

Therefore, the writ petition filed by thc peritioner is disrnissed giving tiberty to the petitioner to make payment of the arrears proportionatery to the extent of her hording and if- sucrr payrne.t is made, the respondents are directed to consider issuing fresh scrvice connection to the petitioner.

¶53

W.P No.i196 oi202l

¶54

¶55

Pending miscellaneous^{petitiotls, if any, in this Writ Pctition shall}

¶56

also stand dism-issed

¶57

SD/. P.Ch.^NAGABH USHAMBA ASSISTANT^R

¶58

¶59

To,

¶60

TGCSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶61

one CC to^{SRICHANDRASEN LAWOFFI-CES'Ad^voc'-t9-tql!Cl} ,. 5;;;6 i;^{sRi R. vrruori i{eboi, sc FoR.rssPDCL toPUCl} : Y;; ddrio"op^{ioC Er'riHEV. ni'gh-coJr.tfo' the State of relangana' [our]}

¶62