THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited appearing for the writ petitioners/ respondent Nos.1 to 7 in W.A.No.657 of 2025/appellants in W.A.No.692 of 2025 and Ms. Nishitha, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.657 of 2025/respondent No.1 in W.A.No.692 of 2025 & Writ Petition No.34539 of 2024.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short issue involved in the present appeals is whether the owner/appellant in W.A.No.657 of 2025/respondent No.1 in W.A.No.692 of 2025 (for short ‘the owner’) is liable to pay the outstanding dues of his lessee/consumer to the respondent electricity company under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act of 2003’), and the General Terms & Conditions of Supply framed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) in 2006, which continues to remain in force after bifurcation of the parent State?

3. Indisputably, the notice of disconnection was issued upon the lessee, M/s. Meghana Pharma, by the respondent electricity company on 13.06.2022. The lessee had left the premises by that time. On failure to pay the outstanding dues by the lessee, the owner’s Service Connection No.S6004023 was also disconnected. The dues were to the tune of Rs.23,81,893/-. At the instance of the aggrieved owner, the matter travelled to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the Circle concerned and thereafter, to the Vidyut Ombudsman of the respondent electricity company. The respondent electricity company being aggrieved by the award of the Forum laid a challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No.34539 of 2024.

4. The learned writ Court after hearing the parties and on consideration of the pleadings on record held that the owner is liable to pay the dues of the lessee, but, at the same time, also held that the Service Connection of the owner is not a link service with that of the lessee/consumer. Being aggrieved by a part of the order dated 01.05.2025 in Writ Petition No.34539 of 2024, the owner and the electricity company as aforesaid, both have preferred these appeals.

5. Considerable arguments have been advanced on the issue whether the owner is falling within the meaning of link service as per the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(15) of the Act of 2003. Arguments have also been advanced on the applicability of clause 5.2.3 of the General Terms & Conditions of Supply and also on the substituted clause 4.8.1 under Regulation No.7 of 2013 issued by APERC, which remains in force in the State of Telangana as well.

6. According to the owner, he does not have any liability for payment of the dues of his lessee since no indemnity bond has been executed in terms of clause 5.2.3 of the General Terms & Conditions of Supply.

7. On the part of the electricity company, reference is made to the lease agreement between the owner and the lessee dated 27.05.2007, clauses 5 & 6 of which permitted the lessee to take connection in his name or the lessor’s name. The electricity company has taken a stand that in terms of the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(15) of the Act of 2003, the owner also falls within the definition of ‘consumer’.

Therefore, the owner cannot escape the liability.

8. The learned writ Court has also referred to the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(15) of the Act of 2003, and clause 8.4 of the General Terms & Conditions of Supply of APERC and proceeded to hold as under:

“16. Taking into consideration:-

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions put-forth by both the learned counsel on record, c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent, d) The impugned order of the 2nd respondent, dated 09.09.2024 in Appeal No.20 of

2024-25 and Appeal No.23 of 2024-25 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Award passe