##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF

TELANGANA

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No. 4501 OF 2020

30.12.2025

Between:

M/s Sri Rama Agro

Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri Samudrala Rajesham

….. Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Power & Energy Department

and four others

….. Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioner represented by its Managing Partner

claims to have purchased land to an extent of 2227.07 square

yards bearing Plot No. P-1/5 (Part)/6 and 7 in Survey No. 127

situated at I.D.A. Nacharam, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District through Registered Sale Deed dated

07.12.2017 from the 6^th Respondent wherein his son intended

to establish an industrial unit for manufacture of Batteries &

Accumulators and sought for sanction of electricity power

supply from Respondents. However, it is stated, Respondents

2

rejected the Application of petitioner dated 25.02.2019 on the

ground that there were dues pending on the earlier HT Service

Connection which was in the name of petitioner’s vendor (6^th

respondent). Petitioner states that they are bona fide purchaser

and dues of previous owner cannot be demanded from them.

1.1. It is stated, on enquiry, petitioner came to know

that their vendor questioned recovery of dues before Vidyut

Ombudsman for the State of Telangana on the ground that its

HT service provided by respondent authorities was under

disconnection from 2014 onwards and on other grounds. The

Ombudsman vide order dated 25.09.2018 disposed of the

Appeal No. 44 of 2018 modifying the claim of pending dues,

thereupon, Respondents 2 to 4 preferred Writ Petition No. 2217

of 2019 against their vendor and the same is pending. It

manifestly shows that respondents alleged dues recoverable

from their vendor are under challenge before legal forums.

1.2. Petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Southern Power Distribution v. Gopal

3

Agarwal, AIR 2017 SC 3862 and Isha Marbles v Bihar State Electricity

Board2 and prayed to allow the writ petition.

2. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing

for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (TSSPDCL) filed Counter Affidavit

and argued that the issue regarding payment of dues is no

more res-integra in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

in TGSPDCL vs Srigdhaa Beverages, (2020) 6 SCC 404, which was thereafter

reiterated by a 3-Judge Bench in K. C. Ninnan v. Kerala

State Electricity Board4. It is contended that petitioner has

not made out any case for interference. The Respondents

contend that unless the entire dues of previous owner

including surcharge are cleared, they cannot sanction new

service connection to the petitioner and relied upon Clause 8.4

and 5.9.6 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply.

3. Having considered the rival submissions of the

respective Counsel and having perused the record, this Court

is of the view that the issue regarding payment of dues of

previous owner is no more res integra in view of the judgment

2 (1995) 2 SCC 648

4 (2023) 14 SCC 431

4

of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above. Therefore,

petitioner is liable to pay the entire dues of previous owner for

seeking fresh/new electricity Service Connection to the subject

property. This Court sees no grounds to grant the relief as

sought by petitioner. The Writ Petition therefore, fails and the

same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

4. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if

any shall stand closed.

-------- -----------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

30^th December 2025

ksld