Telangana High Court
M/S Venkatamma Enterprises vs Telangana State Southern Power ... on 1 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.368 of 2026
Dated: 01.04.2026
Between:
M/s. Venkatamma Enterprises
...Appellant
and
Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad,
and 5 others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT:
Learned counsel Sri Yogeshwar Raj Saxena appears for the appellant.
Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TGSPDCL), appears for respondents No.1 to 5.
2
2. The present writ appeal arises out of the judgment dated 30.12.2025 passed by the learned writ court dismissing W.P.No.4501 of 2020 filed by the appellant herein.
3. The appellant is the purchaser of an extent of 2227.07 square yards of land in Plot No.P-1/5 (part) /6 & 7 in Survey No.127 situated at I.D.A.Nacharam, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, from respondent No.6 by virtue of a sale deed dated 07.12.2017. The said property has been purchased to establish an industrial unit for manufacture of batteries and accumulators on the said land. In the course of establishment of the unit, the appellant came to know that its vendor had questioned the recovery of the previous dues pending on them before the Vidyut Ombudsman on the ground that the HT service connection provided by the authorities was under disconnection from 2014 onwards and on other grounds. The Vidyut Ombudsman decided issues No.(iv) and (v) in favour of the vendor of the appellant, which is the subject matter of W.P.No.2217 of 2019 at the behest of the respondents - TGSPDCL. The said writ petition is pending. However, when the appellant applied for new electricity service connection, it has been rejected on the ground of outstanding dues of the previous HT service connection given to the appellant's vendor. The writ petition 3 filed by the appellant was disposed of by the learned writ court holding the appellant liable to pay the entire dues of the previous owner for seeking fresh/new electricity service connection to the subject property. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this writ appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL.
5. We are of the view that the dues claimed against the appellant are dependent upon the adjudication of the outstanding dues as against its vendor and the fact that the appellant has only purchased part of the whole property. W.P.No.2217 of 2019 is still pending. The ideal course would have been to decide both the writ petitions together. The impugned judgment rendered in W.P.No.4501 of 2020 preferred by the appellant has neither taken into account that the prayer of the appellant is linked with the subject matter of W.P.No.2217 of 2019 nor that the outcome of W.P.No.2217 of 2019 has a bearing on the appellant's case.
6. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment is set aside. Let W.P.No.4501 of 2020 be heard along with W.P.No.2217 of 2019 by the learned writ court having the present roster of the subject matter. 4
7. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ ______________________________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J 01.04.2026 vs