M/s.Virchow Drugs Limited, with its Registered office Vs The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution company

,i, oplnOritriaatEsi'ate,_lD{,-jge.djmgtal, nyOgr.lbad-SO0l55rep.by^{its Direcetor} frri.f.laii,ina neOOVl'Slc.trrt.suOtaiq!,-ag-ed^{58 years R/o.Plot No.15-A, Road} No.2, Jubilee Hills,^{Hyderabad-500033}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Andhra Pradesh^{Central Power Distribution company,Limited, rqO.bVits} Chairman and Managing^{Director Vidyuth Soudha, somajiguda hyderabacl}

¶13

The Andhra PradeSh Central^{Power Distribution company, Limited, rep.by The} SuperintenOing fngineer,^{Operation Circle, Medakat Sangareddy}

¶14

The Andhra Pradesh^{State Financial Corporation, a, corporation.established} under the State Financail^{CorporationsAit,1951,having its He4office at 5-} 9-i% dtiirig Ati Lrne,^{Hyderabadand one of its BranChersat 22-95, Reddy} complex, Ra-machand^{rapu ram, tvled ak}

¶15

The Andhra Pradesh^{lndustrial DevelopmentCorpolatiqn,Limited,.havingits} neoisteied office- it^{pirishrama Bhdvan5-9-58/8, Fathe f\IaidanRoad,} fiVd"-rLOiO-SOOOZg,iep. by^{its S.ManoharReddy,S/o.S.R.Raghava Reddy} aged about 53 Years

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ^{orderor directionmore particularlyone in the} nature of writ of^{mandamusdeclaring theLetterNo.SE/OP} MD[(SAO/HT/D.No.479 dated^{5.8.2009addressed byr the second respondentto} the petitioner demanding^{to pay Rs.15,62,7941- towards cc chargesdue on} 6.1.1gg3 and surcharge thereon^{as illegal,arbitrary, and violativeof principlesof} natural^justice and set aside^{the sameand consequently direct the respondents1}

¶18

'^,-', :.:. r.:;it!i}{i\l,'. i.,irii";llii

¶19

and 2 not to demand any amount from the petitioner company and if any due is there to recoverihe same from the respondents 3 and 4 in the interest of justice.

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 26058 OF 2009)

¶21

Petition uttder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filerl in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respcndents 1 and 2 not to take any coercive steps including disconnection o{ power supply connection given to the petitioner for non-payment of the due demanded under letter No.SE/OP/IMDI(SAO/HT/D.No.479 dated 5.8.2009 addret;sed by the second respondent to petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

Counselfor the Petitioner : SRI VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S

¶23

counser for the Respondents: sRr btfFs9_fllrs5ir"

¶24

The Court mad,: the following: ORDER

¶25

, ;. :i:::i1:'r,-:r:.: rii:.i

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A

¶27

WRIT PETITION No. L9982 of 2009

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition is f,rled to declare the letter^dated 05.08.2009 issued by respondent No.2 to^{thepetitioner} demanding to pay Rs.15,62,794f -^{towards C.C. charges due on} 06.01.1993 and surcharge thereon, as^{illegal, arbitrary and} violative of principles of natural^{justice and set asid.e the same} and. consequently, direct respond.ent^{Nos.l and} 2^{to not to} demand zrny amount from the^{petitioner and if any due is there,to} recover the same from respondent Nos.3^arrtd 4.

¶30

Heard Sri s.vivek chandrasekhar, learned^{counsel for} the petitioner

¶31

Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing^{Counsel appeared} for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶32

The petitioner, having acquired the land^admeasuring Acs.2.2Og,-,rrt". in Sy.No. 639, situated^{at BonthapatlyVillage and} Gram Panchayat, Jinnaram Mandal,^{Medak District,througha} public auction held under Section 29 of the State^Financial Corporations Act, 1951, for a sale^{considerationof} Rs.81,O0,OOO l- arrd paid the full amount,^{received a registered}

¶33

2

¶34

Sale Deec. in his favour on L0.06.2004. The said sale deed explicitly guaranteed peaceful possession and that the subject property was free of all encumbrances, charges, claims or demands whatsoever as of the sale date. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for a fresh HT power connection, dutifully paid the amourrts as directed by respondent No.2 towards development charges, s;ervice charges, and consumption deposit, and received power suipply without default. Surprisingly, five years later, respond.ent No.2 demanded Rs. 15,62,794/- onaccount of arrears owed by the previous owner i.e. M/s. Global Drugs Private Limited. Thereafter, the petitioner clarified to respondent No.2 that as per tJle clauses 3 and 5 of the said Sale Deed, the petitioner is not liable for any liabilities predating the sale, and insisted^'ihat any such dues be recovered from the third-party sellers. However, the respondents are insisting the petitioner to pay the demanded amount. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present ,i/rit Petition.

¶35

LeeLrned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter affidavit stating that M/s. GlobalDrugs Private Limited defaultecl on electricity charges totalling to Rs.6,37,875/-. Despite multiple notices, dues remained unpaid and ultimately lead to disconne,ction and termination of HT service as per the terms and

,!

.' :'.i: I :.

3

II I

conditions of supply. It is stated that post-auction, respondent Nos.l and 2 issued a fresh notice to M/s. Global Drugs private Limited in June, 2oog and, upon learning of the petitioner,s acquisition, sent the impugned letter dated 05-09-2009, grounding tiability on clause 8.4 of the General Terms & conditions of Supply, which mandates sellers to clear dues before transfer and suspends new connections until such dues are settled. It is stated that the judgment of supreme court in Telangana state southern Power Distribution company Limited v. M/s srigdhaa Beveragesr confirms that electricity d.ues are statutory under the Electricity Act, 2oo3, and that DlscoMs/Licensees .' have t]le right to collect the arrears of previous owners from the' " subsequent purchasers. As the dues are statutory, not mere contiactual obligations and enforceable uia Revenue Recovery proceedings, the petitioner's claim that it is not liable is baseless. It is stated that according to respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner cannot avoid liability and the supply granted to the petitioner was irregular and oversight-based, and they retain full right to recover dues uia Revenue Recovery proceedings or sale of

' lzozoy^{6 scc 404}

\ t

I l.'l.:

Illt

,r.,,;,,i::;i,', r...,,

¶46

'i., ll

¶47

4

¶48

property.^'Therefore, the writ petition is said to be misconceived and the s€me is liable to be dismissed.

¶49

In the light of the binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s Srigdhaa Beverages (supra), DlscoMs,/Licensees have the right to collect the arrears of previous c,wners from the subsequent purchasers. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is tiable to pay the dues owed by M/s. Global Drugs pnivate Limited as on the date of sale/purchase transaction of subject premises, in case the dues remain uLnpaid even after the d.ate of the sale/purchase transaction.

¶50

7 - Acc.rdingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, the respondent-authorities shall grant reasonable time for the petitioner to clear off the dues; and in case of defaurt by the petitic'ner, the respondent-authorities are at liberty to initiate approprial:e proceedings for recovery of dues, in accordance with law. No c:osts.

¶51

Mis<:ellaneous applications, if any pending, sharl stand

¶52

closed.

¶53

Note :

¶54

SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶55

That the l.A filed seeking to modify the Para No.2 of the order, dated 11-082025 in W.P.No.19982 of 2009. The same is substituted and amended as per the Order, dated 17-09-2025 in l.A.No.2of ZO2S.

¶56

This Amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been 't on 16-09.2025. '-- -.-.|--r--'..---'^j- ":-^'-

.! --

I

//TRUE COPY/

SD/:S.MALLIKARJ UNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6

¶61

SECTION OFFICER