WP/37524/2021 of Amit Agarwal Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited on 21 January 2026

1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Office at 6-1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad - 500 063 Managing Director.

2. The Divisional Engineer, Operation, Ibrahimbagh Division, TGSPDCL, Cybercity.

3. The Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle, Cybercity, TGSPDCL, Nanal Nagar X-Roads, Rethibowli, Hyderabad.

4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, lbrahimbagh Sub-Division, TSSPDCL, Cybercity. Limited., Corporate Represented by its ..PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

AND Amit Ag_arwal, S/o Sri Munna.lal Aganival, Aged about 44 ,e,ars, Fl/o. E7, Mayur Kushal Complex, Gunfoundry, Hydeiabad. " ...RESPONDE I TAVRIT PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the ci crumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou r may be pleased to vacate the order dated 20.06.2o2s passed in l.A.No.1 oI 2c25 in w.p.No..16757 of 2025. ln the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DIDA VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRt N. SREEDHAR REDDY ;.C. FOR TGSPDCL The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

I IN THE HIGII COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No. 37524 OF 2O2l AND WRIT PETITION No. L6757 OF 2()25 2L.O1.2026 Between: Amit Agarwal Petitioner And Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director And others Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

Since petitioner is common and the lis involved in both the writ Petitions is similar, both of them are heard together and a common order is being passed.

2. Petitioner states that he is the owner and possessor of open agricultural land admeasuring Acs' 2'25 guntas in Survey No. 214/B o[ Janwada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same through Registered Sale Deed daLed 21.5.2O08; Revenue authorities have also mutated his name and issued pattadar pass book. Petitioner states that electricity Service Connection was issued to the above property uide l.iT SC No 120701682

) and till this date, there are no arrears on thc Connection.

2.1. While so, it is stated that the 3.d Il Superintendent Engineer issued Notice dated stating that HT SC No. CBC 363 (Old SC No. RRI) was initially in the name of Giridhar Ispat and sulr the name ol M/s Airan Comptrax Pvt. Ltd. has arrears of consumption charges to thr Rs. 6,58,94,764 l- as on 3i.O7.2O17 a-rrd thert:lc petitioner to pay the said amount or else Servic,: No- 1207O1682 would be disconnected apart frr proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act contends that he has hled a reply dated 28.72.2011 notice intimating that he is no way concerned/cor the dues of above Service Connection as ment ( notice. It is stated by him that except thc Connection lor lhe agricultural propert5z, there is r r Connection belonging to him and further contenrl not liable to pay the electricity dues of abov: companies, hence requested for withdrawing the s:r zrid Service s;ponde nt - . 6.08.2019 l)53) which ru:quently in 1rt pending tune of -,:, directed Oonnection rL initiating Petitioner to the said rected with ned in the LT Servlce HT Service , that he is mentioned I notice.

2.2. It is further contended that in 2021 . F espondents have also installed a transformer for supply o[ ,'l power 3 phase, 25 KW in the open agricultural land ::longing to _) petitioner but without any notice, the said connection was disconnected ol 14.1O.2021. Hence petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No. 37524 of 2021. When the matter is pending adjudication, respondents, without any notice and without issuing any proceedings, all of a sudden, came to petitioner's property on 16.06.2025 and disconnected power to the service connection and demanded petitioner to clear the dues pertaining to HT SC No. CBC353 (old SC No. RRD 353) It is contended that the action of respondents is in contravention of the Electricity y Act, 2OO3 and the Regulations made thereunder by the Regulatory Commission. Hence, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16757 of 2025.

3. Respondents filed Counter Affirdavit vehemently contending that the property in which Service Connection of pctitioner viz. LT SC No. 120701682 is given, earlier belonged to M/s Giridhar Ispat who had industrial Service Connection bcaring HT SC No. CBC 353 (O1d SC No. RRD 353) which had bcen subsequently changed in the records of Respondents in the name of Airan Comptrax Pvt. Ltd. The said Service Connection was disconnected for non-payment of arrears of Rs. 1 ,64,40,4 40 I - and in spite o[ several communications issued, dues have not been paid. Therefore, steps were taken by Respondents for recovery of dues under the Revenue

\ Recovery Act, by issuing Notices in Form A', 'B' r-rd 'C' and arrears as on 31.7.2O22 stood atRs.7,34,76'2641'

3. L It is stated that the Managing Di -, c tor of the previ.ous companies viz. one Munnalal Agarwal I nouc other than thc fathcr of petitioner. It is contendec{ that 1; litioner and his father, to avoid payment of electricity dues, lr r/e changed the ownership of the subject land in the name of xrtitioner by treating the properry to be an agricultural [and. thc District Collector also initiated proceedings under tl t Revenue Recovery Act and issued Distraint Notice for sel: of subject properry for recovery of dues on 25.11.2019. It i; contended that Respondents addressed several letters to tlr: Tahsildar, District Tou,n and Country Planning Officer, Conr rissioner of HMDA and Environmental Engineer of Pollution (:r ntrol Board requesting them not to grant any permission rr respect of subject properw. Therefore to avoid payment r I amounts, petitioner secms to have got the property transl, rrecl in his name and obtainecl LT Service Connection I earing No. 120701682 in 2O2l by suppressing the fact of dur: ()f previous owner. This is nothing but fraud played by petitir ter and his father to avoid payment of electricity dues to Respt,; rlent s.

3.2. It is srated that as HT SC No. CBC 351 was in the very same propertv claimed by petitioner, even I pctitioner ..--. a}}i i ----:'e::_-:-r:-E: -.r . i:t:'a I i{'tji - _

claims to be alien to the earlier industries and also claims to be a bonafde purchaser of the property, still he is liable to pay the dues of previous owner. The issue of payment of dues of previous owner is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in TGSPDCL v. Srigdhaa Beueragesl, which was thereafter reiterated by a 3-Judge Bench in K.C. Ninnan us Kerala State Electricitg Boar&. IL is further contended that as per Clauses 5.9.6 and 8.4 ot General Terms & Conditions of Supply, no new Service Connection can be granted in the very same property which had outstanding dues, unless the same are fully paid and cleared and therefore, prays for dismissal of Writ Petition.

4. In the reply, petitioner almost reiterated the averments in the writ afhdavit.

5. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 37254 of 2O2l and Sri D. Vijal.a Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16757 ot 2025 and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL.

6. [t is the specihc case of Respondents that in the very same property i.e. land admeasuring Acs.2.25 guntas in Survey No. 214/B of Janwada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, t t2o2o) 6 SCC 404 : 2023 lt4) SCC 431

\- ti i I Ranga Reddy District, therc was earlier : H'l Service Connection No. CBC 353 (Old SC No. RRD 353,) r the name of M / s Giridhar Ispat initially ancl the reafter in tht rame of M/ s Airan Comptrax Pvt. Limited. It is also conten j )C that father of petitioner rvas the Managing Director o[ the srr c Companies. This fact is not specihcally denied by petitioner, >.cept vaguely stating that the said contention is without any e z Jence.

7. Further, [he documents filed by pe r ioner in both the Writ Petitions show that he purchased the rroperty from one Rajendra Prasad Goyal who is in fact not t]r owner of the property. The contents of Sale Deed dated 21.t) 1.2008 shows that one Rachuri Pcntaiah and Rachuri Mallaiat. .r,err: absolute owners of the land admeasuring Acs.1.13 guntai in Survey No. 214/3lA and Acs.i-12 guntas in Survey N<'. 214/3lB of Janwada Village and they sold the said proper$' to M/s Giridhar Ispat Pvt. Limited through Regist,: e.d Sale Deed dated 16.07.1985 uide Doc. No. 4852 of 1985. Ir r,rrn, the said Giridhar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. sold the )roperty to M/s Airan Comptrax Tou,ers Pvt. Ltd through I t:gisterd Sale Deed dated 04.O8.2OOO uide Doc. No. 6323 of 2( CrO. It is seen that M/s Airan Comtrax Towers Pvt. Ltd. repre sented by its Managing Director, Agarwal M.L. (father of petir tner) entered into an Agreement of Sale and GPA dated 1O.O4 i ()O3 with one

Rajender Prasad Goyal in respect of the above property and that the said document was validated by the District Registrar & Collector under Indian Stamp Act, Ranga Reddy District on 28.10.2006 ir.r File No. 981S/AR/06. Sri Rajender Prasad Goyal who rvas only a GPA Holdcr sold the property in favour of petitioner uide Registered Sale Deed dated 2 i.05.2O08 which clearly shorvs that petitioner had become owner of the property which had electricity dues. Therefore, this Court is satisf-red that the propcrty claimed by petitioner having purchased through Registered Sale Deed dated 21.5.2008 had earlier HT SC No. CBC 353 (Old No. RRD 353) which had dues of Rs. 7,34,16,264 /- as on 31.7.2022. Petitioner, having purchascd the said property, is liable to pay the dues of previous owners. Therefore, Respondents have the right to deny power supply to the very same property which had dues by previous owners. Aiso, this Court is convinced that petitioncr and his father, in order to avoid dues, seems to have transferred the property in the name of petitioner and have clandcstinely obtained LT SC No. 120701682 for the very same property.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Ninncn's case while referring to earlier judgment rn Hgderabad. Wdnaspathg Limited, held at Para 78 that even under Indian Electricity

Supply Act, 1948, there is an obligation on the rr',v owner to clear the arrears of previous owner, as a pre-conrl : on to avail electricity supply r.l,hich havc statutorv character. /it para 89, while referring to earlier judgment in Paschimant .hal Vidgut Vitharan Nigam, the Hon'ble Apex Court reL :rated that distribution licensees can insist for clearance I arrears of electricity dues of previous consumer befo', rcsuming electricity supply to the premiscs, which i:; valid and permissible under Electricity Act, 2003- At Para 9.i it was held that Electricity Supply Code requiring paymen L I electricity dues of previous olr,ners as a condition for grar t ,l electricity connections have a clear nexus to the scheme o the parent legislations anri the objectives sought to be achier. rC and it is just and reasr>nable for distribution licensees to specify the conditions of supply requiring thc subsequelt lwners or occupiers of premises to pay the elcctricitv dur::, c,f previous owner or occupier as a pre condition for grant r I electrici$r connection to protect their commercial interest zrs well as we lfare of consumers of electricity.

9. AIso, Clauses 5.9.6 and 8.4 of Gener r. Terms & Conditions of Supply abundantly make it clear L rlt no new Service Connection shall be provided to the prt:r r i:;es unless the existing dues are cleared. As petitioner is tl: owner of ,/

property which had electricity dues of previous owner, he is tiable to pay the same- In view of the above discussion, this Court sees no grounds to interfere u'ith disconnection of power supply to [he properly of pctitioner- No grounds are made out for granting the relief as sought in the Writ Petitions. lO. Accordingly both the Writ Petitions are dismissed' No cosLs. 1l .Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall star-rd closed To SD/ A. SREENIVASA RED SISTANT REG //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI ANAND KUMAR KAPOOR' Ad ate oPUC] One CC to SRI DIDA VIJAYA KUMAR' Advocate I cl ' ARREDDY'SC forTGSPDCL[OPUC] OnC CC tO SRI N. SREEDH, Two CD CoPies I

MP GJP

HIGH COURT DAI ED:21 10112026 ; IHr:ll rq 1t, ?i\? k o n,_.S. COI4MON ORDER W.P.No.li7524 OF 2021 AND W.P.No.'6757 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE WFI T PETITIONS WIT .IOUT COSTS a) * Iat a\ & (