A purchaser of property sought a writ directing the power distribution company to provide an electricity connection without demanding clearance of his vendor's arrears. Relying on K.C. Ninan, the court held such a precondition is permissible and disposed of the petition without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
t3300I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 1897 OF 2020
Between:
Sankuri Mahendar Rao, S/o. Sankuri Yadagiri, Aged about 47years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.'1-97, Nemaragomula Vrllage, Bagdayara, Jameelpet, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents inproviding electricity connection to the petitioner premises pursuant to the application made by the petitioner bearing Registration No.617192956981, Dt. 22-11-2019 on the ground of non-payment ofpast electricity arrears by thepetitioners vendori.e., predecessors in title as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, u nconstitutional and also seeking consequential directlon to the Respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for supply of electricity connection without referring to the payment of arrears bypredecessors in title.
lA NO:'1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the i.cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co L I may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the application of the p,r titioner for supply of electricity connection pursuant to the application made by t ,3 petition er bearing Registration No 617192956981 , Dt.22-11,2019 without ref: ring to the payment of arrears by predecessors in title, pending disposat of the \v r.: petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. K.HEMALATHA
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI N.SREEDHAR il .DDY, SC FOR TGSPOCL
The Court made the following: ORDER
L
N6K, J
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE, STATE OF TELANGANA HYDBRAI]AD
.THE HON'BI,E SRI JTJSTICE NAGESH BHEIIMAPAKA WRIT PETII-lON No.l897 of 2O2O
OI't DECENIBER 202s
Betrveen:
SankLiri Mahendar Rao
Petitioncr
AND
I . Tlie State of Telangana, and others
ORDER:
'l l're petitioner is the owner of the propefty to an extent of Ac.0- l0 guntas (1210 square yards) in Survey No.204 ol- Nemaraqornula village, Bibinagar mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, having purchascd the same lrorn M/s Har',ana Steel Centers, vide registered Sale Deed No.6454 of'20 19. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he made an application to ihc 2'"1 respondentTGSPDCL lbr new electricity connection on 22.1 I .20 t9, however, thc rcspondent-TGSPDCL has not taken any action to provlde new connection on tl're ground that there are electricity dues that have not been clearcd by M/s Haryana Steel Centers. It is the contention of the petitioner that the unpaid electricity dues, if any, by the previous owner ol the property cannot be imposed on the petitioner and such clearance of electricity dues cannot be a pre-condition for ploviding new electricity connection.
7
v,,p 1897 2020 NBK, ]
"l. conclusions
a. The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 20,:l Act is not absolute, and is subiect to the such charges and compliance; tipulated by the Electric Utilities as part of the application for supply of t,l ctricity;
b. The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with-r ,;pect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplr ,rs a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, wl n electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only {vlth respect to those parhcular premises for which electricity is sought anr provided by the Electric Utilities;
c. For an application to be considered as a 'reconnection', thc pplicant has to seek supply of electricity with respect to the same pren i :s for which electricity was already provided. Even if the consumer is th€ r rme, but the premises are different, it will be considered as a fresh conn : don and not a reconnection;
d. A condition of supply enacted under Section 49 of the 194I \ct requiring the new owner of the premises to clear the electricity r-ears of the previous owner as a precondition to availing electricity supJ ,, will have a statutory character;
e. The scope of the regulatory powers of the State Comr ssion under Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to stipulate c nditions for recovery of electricity arrears of previous owners from new o subsequent owners;
12023 SCC OnLine SC 663
3
wp_1897 2020 NB(,]
f. The Electri€ity Supply Code providing for recoupment of electricity dues of a previous consumer from a new owner have a reasonable nexus with the obiects of the 2003 AcU
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 statuteproviding for creation of such a charge;
h. The power to initiate recovery proceedings by filing a suit against the defaulting consumer is independent of thepower to disconnect electrical supply as a means of recovery under Section 56 of the 2O03 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 offered for sale with regard to any liability for the payment of dues, like service charges, electricity dues for power connection, and taxes of the local authorities; and
j. ln the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the constitution, the Electric Utilities have been directed in the facts of cases before us to waive the outstanding interest accrued on theprincipal dues from the date of application for supply of electricity by the auctionpurchasers."
sD/- .'DEEPIKA ASSISTANTREGISTRAR G
/ITRUE GOPY"
,ECTtoNOFFICER
To,
Bu*dinss'
BSR PSK
HIGH COURT
DATED: 0111212025
ORDER WP.No.1897 of 2020
1
:.' ( t
)
'4 .!i
var\ il
fl
\e .t
a(:)
"l
L,i.. t*
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS
K! ttl,lzc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether electricity arrears of a predecessor-in-title can be imposed as a precondition for a new owner obtaining an electricity connection.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.C. Ninan vs. Kerala State Electricity BoardRelied on¶4
2023 SCC OnLine SC 663 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sankuri Mahendar Rao
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Energy Department
The Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Telangana State, Bibinagar CSC, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director
The Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd, Telangana State, Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Nalgonda
Nagesh Bheemapaka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
