Telangana High Court
WP/10457/2022 of M/s. Jakhotia Polychem Pvt Ltd Vs CMD, TSSPDCL on 6 January 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 10457 OF 2022 Between: M/s. Jakhotia Polychem Pvt Ltd, Rep. by O office at
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 10457 OF 2022
Between:
M/s. Jakhotia Polychem Pvt Ltd, Rep. by O
office at 3-6-314, 2nd floor, Basheerbagh. H
mprakash Jakhotia, having its registered dyerabad,500029.
AND
PETITIONER
ClVlD, TSSPDCL, Corporate Office, lr/int Compound, Hyderabad The Cheif General Manager, TSSPDCL, Corporate Office Mint Compound'
Hyderabad.
3. The Superintending Engineer, TSPDCL,Operation Circle, Medchal, Gunrock, Secund erabad-50001 5.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the cirdJmstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing the letter No.SE/OP/MCL/SAO/AAO(HT)/JAO(HT) dt.2011212021 for disconnection for supply of power as illegal, arbitrary, unjust consequently repay Rs 60'513/-'
collected by the 3rd resPondent.
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction direct the respondents to not to disconnect the power supply of the petitioner for non-payment of amounts as mentioned in letter No.SE/OP/MCL/SAO/AAO(HT)/JAO( HT) dt.2011212021 issr e j by 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cl- umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C r rt may be pleased pleased to permrt the petitioner herein to represent the pr:l tioner company and pass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.VINESH RAJ
Counsel for Respondents: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, .
SC FORTSSPDCL
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 1o,457 OF 2022
o6
Between:
M/s Jakhotia Poll'chcnr l)r,t. Ltd.,
Rep. by Lata .lakhotia
Petitioner
And
CMD, 'ISSI't)CL &, two ollri-r s,
Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The 3'd Resy:roudcnt rssued letter dated 20.12.2O2l for disr:r>r-rnect iorr of pou,cr supply, rvhich, according to petitroncr-, is itlegal, arl>itrarn' and unjust.
2. I)ctitloner st.rtcs that thc 3'd Respondent Superint-c r.rding Enginecr issucd thc impugned le[ter stating that tl'f service No. MCI- 3O3 I{T Agreenrent of M/s H.M. Plastics l\t- Ltct. loc:at<rd in Plor, No. a4 / A/2, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad was termin:rtcd or-r O6.09. 1993 due to non-payment of CC dtres as per Cllause 5.9.4-2. of General Terms and Conclitions of Supptv a.r-rd Rs.60,513/ is outstanding as on the d:rtc of tcrnrination of I l'l Agreement; further Rs.3,34,089/- is outstarrclirrg Lowards surc)rarge tlli 16.12 2-021. It is also stated .oL.2026 i I
) in the srtid notice th:rt as per the []on'irlc S,-t1:t rmc Court judgment, respondcnts are having right tr) collcr t I e prcviotrs o\\,ncrs tlrres from thc prtrchascrs.
2.1. 'lhc grievancc in this casc is pctitit.rrct . ti,l'iich is it subse(llle nt purchascr, is not Iiablc to I)itv tll, rn e rtrs in respcct of erstu h ilc Scn,icc Connection I l1' S(' i'i, r MCI- 3O:i belonging to M/s II.M. Plastics l\1. Ll.l. or rlhiclr disconnt'cLion u'as cffcclccl zrncl []T Agrt'r'rtrt:nt r^, i : crtninittc cl on 06.09. 1993 due to rron-p.rymcnt oI C].C. Ch.r r ;cs rIS l)( r Clausc r.9.4.2 of Gene ral 'lerms artcl Conrlitiorts ,r' - ,tpplt It is contcndcd, petitioncr obtained ner,l'Servicc Connr" l-r licle IIT SC No. MCL 1252 in the very same premiscs s,hicl vas earlit:r used by M/s tlM Plasti<:s Private Limitcd, he ncc, Il, spondents aie not e mpos,cred to ( ollect tlrc preurorrs ()\\'n( r ', 'lucs frolrr petitioner.
2. '2. Petitroner thercforc. is staled to r rve rn:rclc representation dated 01.O2.20'22 to thc ?r'l rcspon l nt statmg that thc judgmcnt of thc SLlpreme CoLrrt is not :rr rlicable to them :rnd that petitioner and M/s IIM Plastic Prir r te l,rrnitccl are sepzrratc entrties and tl'rey cannot be trcat,',1 as linkecl services. It is further stated, peLitioner ar,:rilcd lre,.[ :onncction and thcy cannot be hcld liable for the allcgccl prtr i,r rs dtrcs as thcre were no clairn o[ dues dcmandcd bv resporrrl, nts ilt thr) ,/ ,, / a"?-
J I EIt I I I i i I j ! I i I time of granting fresh connection to petitioner. Respondents raised regular monthly bill for January dated 26.O1.2022 shou,ing thc current bill charges as Rs-1,54,771/ however, total anrount duc claimr-'d u'as Rs.1,54,926/ ; immediately thereafter, respondents raiscd another bitl revising the amounts payable as sub-rol,al Rs. 1 ,.55,889.72 / on 26.O1.2022 gross total as Rs. 1,54,771 / ; furthcr total :rmount payable as Rs.2,58,063/ Petitioncr also submitted the detailed reprcscntation dateci I 5.02.2O22 seeking clarification regarding the amolrnts claimed under thc said bill, but, so far respondenLs have not responded to the same.
2.3. It is contended that the Hon'ble Suprerne Court, in several judgments, held that dues of previous owners cannot be collected from the present or,l,ner and it is aiso contended that Respondents, in the impugncd proceedings, have stated that petitioner's service connection is a link service of erstwhile owner, which is totally illegal. It is contended that petitioner's Service Connection is a new Service Connection and not linked with earlicr Service Conncclion, therefore, cannot be treated as link service under Clause 1O of Regulation 7 of 2013. It is therefore, prayed lo allorv the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings 1'\
3. By order dated 07.11.2022, in vr submission rnadr: by learned counsel lor petitiont, filing thc Writ Pcrition, pelitioncr paid Rs.l,OO,OOi) l to tlre impugned notice datcd 20.12.)O21, this C.r r interim direclion to respondents not to disconntcL supply of petilioner for nor-r-payment of amounts r,L: in lertter clated 2O.12.2O2l issued by the 3.d resporr,
4. The 3.,1 respondenl fitccl CoLur r r contcnding that lhe issue of payment of dues o[ pr cr, is no mcrrc res i.ntegra in viet of the judgmenl ()i ! Supreme Coi-rrt in TGSPDCL u. Srigd.haa Beuerc,., was thereafter, reiteratcd by a tl'rree-,Judge Benc I Ninnrrn u. Kerala State Electricitg Board2. petitioner is operating from the prerniscs vr.hicl , held b,y M/ s FIM Plastics Private Limitecl havir-iL, J MCL 303, therefore, contends that as per Clarr s General Terms & Conditions of Supply, to issue po. to the said property which had another Sen,ice r earlier, there shall be no pending dues. It is cor-r r petitioner seems to havc obtained the presj€ r Connection u.ithout disclosing the earlier Servir:e, ( w of the tha L altr:r pLrrsuanI rt llrantcd Lhc pou.cr menLionr:cl n1. A llid avi t otls o\r,ncr rc I Ion'ble esr n'hich in X. C. clmittedlv, as t-'arlicr T SC No. r 5.9.6 of 'er snppl5, onnectior-t nded that t Scn icc onnection '2O2O.161 SC( +04 '\20'23) l4 SCC-+:11 iiit.:l il i I I I I I I i I J t I ;:
and Rcspondents havc also granted the new Service Connecliorr by ovcrsight. 'I'herefore, it is pleaded that the above Writ Petition is liable to be dismissecl in vicu'of the judgments of Hon'irle Suprernt' Court, rcferrcd to abo,'e.
5. Ileard Sri N. Vinesh Raj, learned counsel lor petiLioner as well as Sri N. Srecclhar Rcdd-t, learned Standing Counsel. lor respondcnt Company.
6. As rightly cotttcndecl tr-\' l"o.r-t.,, Standing Counsel, thc issue rcgardil.rg pa-,-ment of dues of prcvious ou'ner is no more res Ltegra in vierv of thc juclgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srigdhaa Bevera.ges and I(. C. lVinncn's case (referred to supra). Though it rvas contended by learned counsel [or petitioner that petitioner obtained new service connection, hence, they are not liable to pay the dues of previous o\ rner, this Court is not in a position to agree with the said contention, ttr view'of Lhc judgrneuts rclcrred to above, as petitioner is the present ou.ncr of the subjcct premises which u.as carlicr held by M/s HM Plaslics Privatc Limit.ed, hence, they are liable to pay the dues o[ the previous owner. This Court sees no illegality in the impugned proceedings issued by the Respondents. The Writ Petition Lherefore, lacks merits and thc same is liablc to be dismissecl.
7. Tht' Writ Petilion cosLs.
8. Con scquerr t11., the ar-rv shall stancl t loserrl To, IS accordinglv, rli ; :rissr:d. No miscellancours Al l lLcrrlions, if f;, /-P. PONNA KRISHNA At] il ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI N.VINESH RAJ' Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY' SC FOR TG: 'DCL IOPUCI Two CD CoPies BSK/PMK _/_
w
HIGH COURT DATED:0610112026 t IH: :: n'l UJ
1. ":t; ==.. (r:'\ (.,\\'' o c) , -Iq ,-./' ,.,)' i... ' t.l
\r ! i .l ,it *
ORDER
WP.No.IO457 of 2022 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS r;\ Ibrr \L,l[t' n-> t