Rahmath Banu vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1644 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                 WRIT PETITION NO.5396 OF 2023


                               ORDER

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus

declaring the action of respondent No.3 in rejecting the release of new

service connection to the petitioner against the Registration

No.NR90423819507, dated 07.02.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and in

violation of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and consequently

to direct the respondents to set aside the rejection order and release new

service connection of 1000 Watts applied vide Registration No.

NR90423819507, dated 07.02.2023 and to pass such other order or

orders in the circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are

that the petitioner claims to have purchased 131 Square Yards of land

situated at Municipal No.19-2-213/13/A, Chandulal Baradari,

Hyderabad from Mrs. Mohammedi Begum, W/o Mohd. Qadeer Ahmed

vide Registered Sale Deed bearing No.145/2023, executed on

13.01.2023 at the Sub-Registrar Office, Dhood Bowli, Hyderabad.

Thereafter, the Petitioner had made an application for providing W.P.No.5396 of 2023

electricity connection vide Registration No. NR90423819507 on

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 of Rs.23,00,000/- are paid

which are pending in respect of seven (7) individual OSL services in the

said premises. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a

bonafide purchaser who has paid the sale consideration for the property

and that she has conducted due diligence before the purchase of the

property. He submits that the respondents have not raised any bills for

electricity connection against the previous owner and therefore, the

respondents cannot now insist or require the petitioner to make payment

of the consumption charges of the previous owner. He further submits

that, since the respondents have not raised the bill, they are not entitled

to recover the same from the subsequent owners. In support of this

contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut W.P.No.5396 of 2023

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

Rahamjulla1.

4. 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 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is not willing to pay the dues of the previous owner.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other

hand, relied upon the averments 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 Forum, 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 clubbed from the date of inspection and

Civil Appeal No.1672 of 2020, dt.18.02.2020.

W.P.No.5396 of 2023

the respondents were therefore permitted to club the bills and a single

bill raised.

6. The learned 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 that the bill has been

raised for the period from 10.12.2020 to August, 2022. It is stated that

the said amount has not been paid till date. The learned Standing

Counsel submitted that as per the clause 5.9.6 of the General Terms and

Conditions of Supply, on termination of service of a consumer, an

applicant is treated as a fresh application for the purpose of giving

supply to the same premises when applied for and service connection

shall be provided if there are no dues over the previous service

connection. Further as per Clause 8.4 of the General Terms and

Conditions of Supply, the seller of the property shall clear all dues and

on failure to do so, the respondent company may refuse to supply

electricity to the premises through the already existing connection or

refuse to provide a new connection. He submitted that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Telangana State Southern Power

Distribution Company Limited and another V/s. Srigdhaa W.P.No.5396 of 2023

Beverages2 has held that electricity dues are statutory in character under

the Electricity Act and as per the terms 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 connection until the dues are paid.

7. The learned 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 property.

8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

this Court finds that the previous owner of the property has not been

made party to the present Writ Petition and therefore, the Writ Petition

fails on this account itself. As per Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act,

'consumer' means any person who is supplied with electricity for his

own use by a licensee or the Government 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 property 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

(2020) 6 SCC 404 W.P.No.5396 of 2023

be raised on the previous owner of the property in whose name the

service 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.23,96,966/-. Therefore, it is

clear that the demand has been raised against the previous owner of the

property and the petitioner being the successor-in-interest is also liable

for any 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.

9. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

and another V/s. Srigdhaa Beverages (2 supra) makes it clear that the

Electricity dues are statutory in character under the Electricity Act and

as per the terms and conditions of supply, they cannot be waived and

cannot partake the character of dues of purely contractual nature.

10. In the judgment of Assistant Engineer (D1), 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 of electricity would W.P.No.5396 of 2023

arise when the bill is issued by the licensee company quantifying the

charges to be paid.

11. In this case, the previous owner of the property against whom the

bill or demand is raised is not made a party to this Writ Petition and

therefore there is no averment confirming or contradicting the statement

of the respondents in the counter affidavit that the final bill has been

raised.

12. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the dues of

the previous owner cannot be waived and the successors-in-interest of

the said property are liable to make payment of the consumption charges

of the previous owner proportionately to the extent of their holding if

their application for a new service connection was to be considered by

the respondents.

13. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed

giving liberty to the petitioner to make payment of the arrears

proportionately to the extent of her holding and if such payment is

made, the respondents are directed to consider issuing fresh service

connection to the petitioner.

W.P.No.5396 of 2023

14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall

also stand dismissed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Date: 17.04.2023 Svv/BMS