LawSphereX

M/s. Pragathi Leasing and Developers v. The State of Telangana

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-03-06. M/s. Pragathi Leasing and Developers v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case...

Judgment text

[ 3300 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 16580 OF 2019 Between: tvl/s. - Pragathi Leasing and_ peveropers, having its office at 6-3-569, 3rd Froor, 'ov BMW Buitding, opp_. RTn office, Kirairataoao,-nyoeiaoal : soo oez,'n"di it, Partner Sri. Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Late p Narayan Rao. ... PETITIONER AND 'I . The State of Telanoana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderibad. 2. The Southern Power Distribution Company of T. S. Ltd. , Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3. The Divisional Engineer, Operation/ Medchal Circle. 4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation/ Medchal Circle. 5. The Asst. Engineer, Operation/TSSpDCL, Medchal Circle. 6. The Superintending Engineer/Operation, tVledchal Circle. 7.

M/s Sri Abhishek Steels and power Limited,, (previousry known as Abhishek steels Limited)Represented by its Authorized Representative shri yash Agarrwal, O/o. Flat No. 104, Vjaya Enclave, Sri Nigar Colony, eunlagutia, Hyderabad 500073. R7 impleaded as per C. O. dt. 27. 11. 2025 in lA No. 1/2024. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, one more particurarry in the nature of a writ of Mandamus decraring the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 10. 04. 2018 rejecting permission for new connection and set i side the same and consequently direct the Respondents to provide new electricity service connection to the petitioners property at Sy. No.

71 , 72 , nd 73 of Gundla Pochampally (Village), Medchal (Mandal), Rangareddy Distrir:l lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nay be pleased to direct the Respondents to provide new electricity connectior to the petitioners property at Sy. No. 71 ,72 and 73 of Gundla Pochampally Village), Ivledchal (Mandal), Rangareddy District, pending the disposal of the wrrt petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir( umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court r ray be pleased to Iist the matter for being mentioned for recording the above r ndertaking in the order dated 06. 03. 2026 in WP. 16580 ol 2019. lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Between: 1. The Southern Power Distribution Company of T. S. Ltd. , Khz ratabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Divisional Engineer, Operation/ Medchal Circle. 3.

The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation/ Medchal Cirr;l :. 4. The Asst. Engineer, Operation/TSSpDCL, Medchal Circle. 5. The Superintending Engineer/Operation, Medchal Circle. .. PETITIONERS/RE SPONDENTS AND 1 Le^asing_and. Devetopers, having its \A/9.. [a-O. alni office at € 3-569, 3rd Floor, BMW Building, Opp. RTA Oflice, Rhairatabad: Hyderabad . 500 OtjZ. neo. O,i its Partner Sri. Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Late p. Na-rayan Rar, . . . . . . RESPONDENT/l) :TITIONER Secretary' Energy Department' 2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretariat, HYderabad. No 1 ....... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ... RESPONDENTS in the stated Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that circumstances pleased to the petition, the High court may be in the affidavit filed in support of '1 06-08-2019 in l. A. No. of 2019 in w. P. No. vacate the interim orders passed on 16580 of 2019 and dismiss the Writ Petition.

IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: trilis sri Abhishek steels and Power Limited,, (Previously known as Abhishek Steels Limited) Represented by its Authorized Representative Shrr Yash A;;;*;i, ololFlai No. 1o4,Yiaya Enclave, Sri Nagar colony, Puniagutta' Hyderabad 500073. ... VACATE PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO. 7 AND 1 M/s. Pragathi Leasing and Develop. erg, ha. ving its office at 6-3-569' 3rd Floor' - 500 082' Rep bv iirra"w brloiislopp. hra office, khairatabad,-Hvderabad its'Fartner Sri'pah'Ou Ranga Rao, S/o. Late P. Narayan Rao' ..... RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER TheStateofTelangana,Rep. byitsPrincipalsecretary,EnergyDepartment' Secretariat, Hyderabad. T. S. Ltd Khairatabad, J The Southern Power Distribution Company of , Hyderabad. Medchal Circle. 4 The Divisional Engineer, Operation/ Medchal Circle' 5 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operationi Medchal Circle' ti The Asst.

Engineer, Operation/TSSPDCL, 7 The Superintending Engineer/Operation, Medchal Circle' 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 vacate the interim orders dt. 06. 08. 2019 in lA. No. 1 of 2019 in WP. No. 16580 of 2019 and dismiss the Writ petition bearing WP No. 16580 of 2019. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. SRI HARSHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No 1: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondents No 2 To 6: SRI P. SREEOHAR RI DDY' STANDING COUNSEL t:t )R TGSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent No 7: M/S PILLIX LAW FIRM The Court made the following: ORDER IN TIIE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITIONS No. 16580 OF 2Ol9 06. o3. 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, Enerry Department & others .... Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled to set aside the order dated i0. O4. 2018 whereby the 2"d 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 7e respondent in the mentioned survey numbers admeasuring Acs. 20. 3O guntas situated in an open auction conducted on 22. O9 . 2017 , for a total consideration of Rs. S3,g3,0O,OOO/- (Rupees Fiftv lhree Crores and Eighty Three Lakhs only); pursuant tlrr: eto, a Sale Certiflcate dated I1. 12. 2017 was also issue. cl which was registered as Doc No. 9756 of 2OIT on the fik.

of the Sub_ Registrar, Medchal and physical possession was i1 so delivered to petitioners. 2. 1. It is stated, u,hen petitioner made arr Application for grant of neu' Service Connecrion dated O5. 03. 2 ) 1g, it was rejected by the Respondent authorities through rtrr imppg666 proceedings dated 1O. 4. 2O1g stating that as therr: r as already an existing Service Connection in the name ,,f the 7tr, respondent rvhich has an outstanding electricit. dues of Rs. 48,07,878. 72 (as on 23. 12. 2014), no n I v Service Connection car-r be granted. a By order dated O6. 08. 2O19, this Cou r granted rnterim direction to respondents to provide :lectricity connectron to pctitioner,s subject property withour insisting them to pay the outstanding dues of the erstwhire t wner i. e. M/s Abhishek Steels, in terms of the Regulations. 4. [,earned counsel for petitioner p.

Sri Sr Harsha Reddy submits that his client purchased the prope- y in the open public auction which was conducted under the p ovisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, hence, in view of Sectrcr 26t of -) the Act prioriry 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, lherc are no encumbrances pertaining to Electricify Department. He relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Electricitg Co. Ltd.. u. Gujarat Inns (P) Ltd. r, Isha Marbles u. Bihar Stll:te Electrtcitg Board2 and Southern power Distribution Compang of Telangana Limited o. Gopal Agaruals. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 to 6 (TGSPDCL) Sri P. Sreedhar Reddy, based on the counter submits that pou. er supply was released to the 7ft respondent uide HT SC No. MCL 418 on 26. 03. 1988 and it was disconnectcd on 03. O4.

2O13 for non-payment of Current Consumption chargcs by which date there were pending dues of Rs. 48,O7,8721-. Lcarned 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 7r1, respondent did not clear the dues, proceedings were initiated under ApSEB (Recovery of (2004) ' 3 sCC 587 '1tees; z scc oas '( 1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 648 Dues) Act, 1984 by issuing Noticcs in Form 'A', 'F! and 'C' and also revenue recovery proccedings rverc initiattxl ,), attaching the immovable properties. At that stage, thc Banl which had lien over the property, had sold the same in open ir rction in 'as is where is and whatever is' basis and petition:: ' being the highest bidder was issued thc Saie Ccrtificate. 5. 1.

lrarned Standing Counsel submits tl i t petitioner is liable to pay the pending dues of previous ownc r', therefore there is no illegality or irregularity in issuing thr impugned proceedings. The Learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL further contends that thc issue of paymerlt of duer; tf previous owners is no more res-integro in vicn, of the judgr rent of the Hon'ble Supre mc Court in Telangana Sto:te Soutt ern Pouter Distribution Compang Limtted a. Srigdhaa . B eaerage#, which was further reiterated by a Benc t-r in K. C. -z-Judge Iifrnnan o. Kerdla State Electricitu Boards at < therefore prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. M/s Pillix Larv Firm, lcarned counsel or the 7n respondent, based on the counter-afhdavit, r: rde their submissions. [t is argued that as pcr the terms an. :onditions annexed to the sale certihcate datcd 06. 12. 2017, : rrticularly condition Nos.

2 and 4, the property was sold on'as s where is o lzozol o scc aoa 1r6cc 43r ' lzozsy and whatever there is'basis, hence, electricity arrears, being sta[utory liabilites are required to be cleared by the successfui bidder petitioner. / It u'as incumbent upon petitioner to inquire about outstanding statutory liabilities belore bidding and they are responsible for clearing alt electricity dues to obtain a new service connection as pcr e-auction sale terms. 6. 1. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Suprcme Courr in Srigd. haa Beuerages case and also Paschilma,nchal Vtd. yut Vitran Nigam Ltd. a. DVS Steels and. Atlogs (4 Ua. u and contends that if statutory rules govern the conditions for supply of electricit5r, the distributor can insist upon fulfilment thereof and a condition for clearance of dues cannot be termcd arbitrary or unreasonable. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in Hq. ryana Stalte Etectricitg Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills7. 7 .

On considering the rival submissions, it is to be seen, the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. C. Ninnaz,s case (supra) had already held that the present owner of the property is liable to pay the electricity dues of the previous owner. para 342. 2 ot the said judgment reads rhat "the dutg to supplg electicitg under Section 43 k utith respect to the ottner or occupier of the premises. The 2OO3 Act contemplates o sAnergA between tlrc u lzooey r scc z ro ' 1zo roy e scc l+s consumer and the premises. [Jnd. er Section 43, u,t en electricitg is supplied, the ouner or occupier becomes tz consu, rcr onlg uith respect to those partianlar premises Jor uhich zlectricity is sought and prouided bg the Electric tttilitiesi, pat.. ]42 . 4 of Lhe judgment reads ,,A that conditiort of supptg en tcted und.

er Section 49 of tl@ j94g Act requiing the netl rt rner of the premises to clear the electricity arrears o-f the preuio s olDner as a preconditiort to auailing electicitg sttpplg u_till hau= a statutory charactef . Further, para 342. 6 ol. ti-re judgment rea( s thaL,,TLe Electricitg supply code . prouiding for recoupment . : electicitg dues of a preuious consumer from a neu, ,r ou)tt haue a reasonable nents u. tith the objects of the 2C03 Ac(. 8. Admittedlv, petitioner ptrrchased []r subject property in September 2orr in open purblic auctio, tr rd applied for new Service Connection therealter. Since Elect icity Act, 2003 has come into effect from 10. €r. 2OO3 arrd in vr _. v, of the judgments of the Ho,,blc Supreme Court raentioned ,upr,, all the dues thereaftcr, are liable to be paicl by the s I )sequent purchaser. The judgments relied on by learncd co rnsel for petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the pre:; n[ case.

This Court therefore, sees no grounils to interferc vith the demand notice issued by Respondcnl authorities, hen< :, of the viewlhat Writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9 Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No COSTS 10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed sD/- B. REKHA RANI S STAN T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEETION OFFICER To, Advoc te loPUCl REDDY' P SRI HARSHA One CC to SRI' 1. UCI FIRM' Advocates [O 2. OneCC to M/S PILLIX LAW At of Telangana High Court for the State ENERGY' Cs GP FOR 3. Two C to Hydera bad. [oUTl Advocate [OPUCI REDDY' SRI P SREEDHAR 4. One CC to 5. Two CD CoPies DAN HIGH COURT DATED:0610312026 1r. i I S fl o c ORDER t o WP. No. 16580 of 2019 u, 13 nry 2ni5 z * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS lz(sl">-e ,

Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.