IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITIONS No. 16580 OF 2019

06.03.2026 Between:

M/s Pragathi Leasing & Developers Rep. by its Partner Sri Pandu Ranga Rao ….. Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department & others ….. Respondents

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 10.04.2018 whereby the 2nd respondent – Southern Power Distribution Company of T.S Ltd. (TGSPDCL) rejected permission for new connection and to consequently direct Respondent authorities to provide new electricity service connection to petitioner’s property situated at Survey Nos. 71, 72 and 73 of Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Petitioner claims to have purchased land and building belonging to the 7^th respondent in the mentioned survey numbers admeasuring Acs.20.30 guntas situated in an open auction conducted on 22.09.2017, for a total consideration of Rs. 53,83,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Three Crores and Eighty Three Lakhs only); pursuant thereto, a Sale Certificate dated 11.12.2017 was also issued which was registered as Doc. No. 9756 of 2017 on the file of the Sub- Registrar, Medchal and physical possession was also delivered to petitioners.

2.1. It is stated, when petitioner made an Application for grant of new Service Connection dated 05.03.2018, it was rejected by the Respondent authorities through the impugned proceedings dated 10.4.2018 stating that as there was already an existing Service Connection in the name of the 7^th respondent which has an outstanding electricity dues of Rs. 48,07,878.72 (as on 23.12.2014), no new Service Connection can be granted.

3. By order dated 06.08.2019, this Court granted interim direction to respondents to provide electricity connection to petitioner’s subject property without insisting them to pay the outstanding dues of the erstwhile owner i.e.

M/s Abhishek Steels, in terms of the Regulations.

4. Learned counsel for Petitioner Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy submits that his client purchased the property in the open public auction which was conducted under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, hence, in view of Section 26E of

the Act priority should be provided to the secured creditors. Since there is no charge on the property, respondents cannot insist the subsequent purchaser for payment of arrears. According to him, there are no encumbrances pertaining to Electricity Department. He relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Gujarat Inns (P) Ltd.1, Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board2 and Southern Power Distribution

Company of Telangana Limited v. Gopal Agarwal3

5. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 to 6 (TGSPDCL) Sri P. Sreedhar Reddy, based on the counter submits that power supply was released to the 7^th respondent vide HT SC No. MCL 418 on 26.03.1988 and it was disconnected on 03.04.2013 for non-payment of Current Consumption charges by which date there were pending dues of Rs. 48,07,872/-. Learned Standing Counsel further contends that as per Clause 5.9.4.3 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply (GTCS), no new service connection can be issued for a property unless its old dues are cleared. It is further contended that as the 7^th respondent did not clear the dues, proceedings were initiated under APSEB (Recovery of

1 (2004) 3 SCC 587

2 (1995) 2 SCC 648

3 ( 1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 648

Dues) Act, 1984 by issuing Notices in Form ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ and also revenue recovery proceedings were initiated by attaching the immovable properties. At that stage, the Bank which had lien over the property, had sold the same in open auction in ‘as is where is and whatever is’ basis and petitioner being the

highest bidder was issued the Sale Certificate.

5.1. Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner is liable to pay the pending dues of previous owner, therefore there is no illegality or irregularity in