1. This Writ Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 10.04.2018 whereby the 2nd respondent – Southern Power Distribution Company of T.S Ltd. (TGSPDCL) rejected permission for new connection and to consequently direct Respondent authorities to provide new electricity service connection to petitioner’s property situated at Survey Nos. 71, 72 and 73 of Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Petitioner claims to have purchased land and building belonging to the 7th respondent in the mentioned survey numbers admeasuring Acs.20.30 guntas situated in an open auction conducted on 22.09.2017, for a total consideration of Rs. 53,83,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Three Crores and Eighty Three Lakhs only); pursuant thereto, a Sale Certificate dated 11.12.2017 was also issued which was registered as Doc. No. 9756 of 2017 on the file of the Sub- Registrar, Medchal and physical possession was also delivered to petitioners.

2.1. It is stated, when petitioner made an Application for grant of new Service Connection dated 05.03.2018, it was rejected by the Respondent authorities through the impugned proceedings dated 10.4.2018 stating that as there was already an existing Service Connection in the name of the 7th respondent which has an outstanding electricity dues of Rs. 48,07,878.72 (as on 23.12.2014), no new Service Connection can be granted.

3. By order dated 06.08.2019, this Court granted interim direction to respondents to provide electricity connection to petitioner’s subject property without insisting them to pay the outstanding dues of the erstwhile owner i.e. M/s Abhishek Steels, in terms of the Regulations.

4. Learned counsel for Petitioner Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy submits that his client purchased the property in the open public auction which was conducted under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, hence, in view of Section 26E of the Act priority should be provided to the secured creditors. Since there is no charge on the property, respondents cannot insist the subsequent purchaser for payment of arrears. According to him, there are no encumbrances pertaining to Electricity Department. He relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Gujarat Inns (P) Ltd. ((2004) 3 SCC 587), Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board ((1995) 2 SCC 648) and Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited v. Gopal Agarwal((1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 648).

5. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 to 6 (TGSPDCL) Sri P. Sreedhar Reddy, based on the counter submits that power supply was released to the 7th respondent vide HT SC No. MCL 418 on 26.03.1988 and it was disconnected on 03.04.2013 for non-payment of Current Consumption charges by which date there were pending dues of Rs. 48,07,872/-. Learned Standing Counsel further contends that as per Clause 5.9.4.3 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS), no new service connection can be issued for a property unless its old dues are cleared. It is further contended that as the 7th respondent did not clear the dues, proceedings were initiated under APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 by issuing Notices in Form ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ and also revenue recovery proceedings were initiated by attaching the immovable properties. At that stage, the Bank which had lien over the property, had sold the same in open auction in ‘as is where is and whatever is’ basis and petitioner being the highest bidder was issued the Sale Certificate.

               5.1. Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner is liable to pay the pending dues of previous owner, therefore there is no illegality or irregularity in issuing the impugned proceedings. The Learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL further contends that the issue of payment of dues of previous owners is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited v. Srigdhaa Beverages ((2020) 6 SCC 404), which was further reiterated by a 3-Judge Bench in K.C. Ninnan v. Kerala State Electricity Board ((2023) 14 SCC 431) and therefore prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. M/s Pillix Law Firm, learned counsel for the 7th respondent, based on the counter-affidavit, made their submissions. It is argued that as per the terms and conditions annexed to the sale certificate dated 06.12.2017, particularly condition Nos. 2 and 4, the property was sold on ‘as is where is and whatever there is’ basis, hence, electricity arrears, being statutory liabilites are required to be cleared by the successful bidder / petitioner. It was incumbent upon petitioner to inquire about outstanding statutory liabilities before bidding and they are responsible for clearing all electricity dues to obtain a new service connection as per e-auction sale terms.

               6.1. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srigdhaa Beverages case and also Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. DVS Steels and Alloys (P) Ltd. ((2009) 1 SCC 210) and contends that if statutory rules govern the conditions for supply of electricity, the distributor can insist upon fulfilment thereof and a condition for clearance of dues cannot be termed arbitrary or unreasonable. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills ((2010) 9 SCC 145).

7. On considering the rival submissions, it is to be seen, the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.C.Ninnan’s case (supra) had already held that the present owner of the property is liable to pay the electricity dues of the previous owner. Para 342.2 of the said judgment reads that “the duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and the 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”. Para 342.4 of the judgment reads that “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”. Further, Para 342.6 of the judgment reads that “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”.

8. Admittedly, petitioner purchased the subject property in September 2017 in open public auction and applied for new Service Connection thereafter. Since Electricity Act, 2003 has come into effect from 10.6.2003 and in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned supra, all the dues thereafter, are liable to be paid by the subsequent purchaser. The judgments relied on by learned counsel for petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. This Court therefore, sees no grounds to interfere with the demand notice issued by Respondent authorities, hence, of the view that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.