IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.1897 of 2020

01^stDECEMBER, 2025 Between:

Sankuri Mahendar Rao … Petitioner AND

1. The State of Telangana, and others

ORDER:

The petitioner is the owner of the property to an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas (1210 square yards) in Survey No.204 of Nemaragomula village, Bibinagar mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, having purchased the same from M/s Haryana Steel Centers, vide registered Sale Deed No.6454 of 2019. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he made an application to the 2^nd respondent-TGSPDCL for new electricity connection on 22.11.2019, however, the respondent-TGSPDCL has not taken any action to provide new connection on the ground that there are electricity dues that have not been cleared by M/s Haryana Steel Centers. It is the contention of the petitioner that the unpaid electricity dues, if any, by the previous owner of the property cannot be imposed on the petitioner and such clearance of electricity dues cannot be a pre-condition for providing new electricity connection.

2. Heard Ms. K. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-TGSPDCL.

Perused the record.

3. At the hearing, learned Standing Counsel submits that the issue no longer res integra, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.C.Ninan vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, 12023 SCC OnLine SC 663, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“I. Conclusions

328. The conclusions are summarised below:

a. The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 2003 Act is not absolute, and is subject to the such charges and compliances stipulated by the Electric Utilities as part of the application for supply of electricity;

b. The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities;

c. For an application to be considered as a ‘reconnection’, the applicant has to seek supply of electricity with respect to the same premises for which electricity was already provided. Even if the consumer is the same, but the premises are different, it will be considered as a fresh connection and not a reconnection;

d. A condition of supply enacted under Section 49 of the 1948 Act requiring the new owner of the premises to clear the electricity arrears of the previous owner as a precondition to availing electricity supply will have a statutory character;

e. The scope of the regulatory powers of the State Commission under Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to stipulate conditions for recovery of electricity arrears of previous owners from new or subsequent owners;

f. The Electricity Supply Code providing for recoupment of electricity dues of a previous consumer from a new owner have a reasonable nexus with the objects of the 2003 Act;

g. The rule making power contained under Section 181 read with Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to enable the regulatory commission to provide for a statutory charge in the absence of a provision in the plenary statute providing for creation of such a charge;

h. The power to initiate recovery proceedings by filing a suit against the defaulting consumer is independent of the power to disconnect electrical supply as a means of recovery under Section 56 of the 2003 Act;

i. The implication of the expression “as is where is” basis is that every intending bidder is put on notice that the seller does not undertake responsibility in respect of the property offered for sale with regard to any liability for the payment of dues, like service charges, electricity dues for power connection, and taxes of the local authorities; and j. In the