IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12102 of 2005 Between : M.A. Ghulam S/o. Gulam Ahmed R/o. United Kingdom, Rep. by its G.P.A. Sri G.R. Javeed S/o. Gulam Ahmed, aged 29 yrs, R/o. 11-2-555/1/A, New Agapura, Hyderabad-500 001. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Supdt. Engineer, 2 The Divisional Engineer, Assessments-I Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. 4th Floor, St. No.17, Urdu Hall Lane, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, APSPDCL Distribution, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO-II, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS by: i) declaring the action of the respondents in demanding the payment of arrears due from the previous owner to be paid by the petitioner herein as arbitrary, illegal and against the Law laid down by this Hon'ble Court; ii) direct the respondents herein to forthwith restore the power supply to the residential premises of the petitioner bearing supply No. SC-C3 362 on 11-2-555/1/A, Sultan Nawas Jung, Agapura, Hyderabad and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondents: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in demanding for payment of arrears due from his previous owner, on account of electricity consumption charges, as illegal, with a further direction for restoration of power supply to Service Connection bearing No.C3-362 in the premises bearing No.11-2-555/1/A, Sultan Nawas Jung, Agapura, Hyderabad. 2. One Mr.Khaja Niazuddin was the owner of the house bearing No.11-2-555/1/A, situated at Agapura, Hyderabad. For domestic purpose, he has obtained power Service Connection from the respondent/Company, under Service Connection No.C3-362. The said owner of the building has sold it to the petitioner under a registered sale deed, dated 11.05.2004, for a consideration of Rs.12 lakhs. But subsequently, after purchase of the said house by the petitioner, on the application submitted by him, his name was recorded in the records of the respondent/Company against Service Connection No.C3-362, for supply of electric power. But, thereafter, on the ground that the petitioner has not paid the electricity consumption arrears, which were assessed as per the final assessment order, dated 03.05.2005, the service connection was disconnected. Prior to the purchase of the house by the petitioner, the said service connection was inspected by an Assistant Engineer of the respondent/Company, and on the ground that the vendor of the petitioner had indulged in malpractice, proceedings were initiated to assess the loss suffered by the respondent/Company. Provisionally, the loss sustained was assessed at Rs.48,790/-, and the consumer was asked to pay half of the said provisional assessment amount. It is submitted that pursuant to the provisional assessment, the vendor of the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.24,395/-, and thereafter, final assessment proceedings had taken place. In the final assessment proceedings, the competent authority i.e. the Divisional Engineer (Assessments-I), Hyderabad, has passed the order, dated 03.05.2005, assessing the final loss sustained by the respondent/Company at Rs.31,175/-, plus Rs.50/- towards supervision charges, and another Rs.50/- towards reconnection charges, less the amount already paid. It is contended that though the vendor of the petitioner had already deposited half of the amount as assessed in the provisional assessment order i.e. Rs.24,395/-, respondents have issued a bill, showing the arrears at Rs.23,043/-, by charging 2% additional charges as per Condition No.39.13 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, framed under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. 3. In this writ petition, the declaration to the effect that the petitioner is not liable to pay the arrears of the vendor of the petitioner, is sought for, mainly on the ground that respondents have recorded the name of the petitioner by entertaining his application for transfer of Service Connection in his name. It is further submitted that asmuch as the property itself is sold by the vendor of the petitioner under a registered sale deed, and if the vendor has committed any malpractice, the petitioner is not liable to pay. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board[1] and in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. V. Gujarat Inns Private Limited[2], and also on an unreported judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.1775 of 2004. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.3, on behalf of all the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Service Connection held by the vendor of the petitioner was inspected on 10.11.1998, and having noticed the malpractice committed by him, a provisional assessment order was issued on 14.11.1998, and finally the amount of loss was assessed at Rs.31,175/-. It is stated that as the amount of final assessment has been added to the bill and as the said amount was not paid, the Service Connection was disconnected. It is submitted that asmuch as the petitioner is utilizing the same Service Connection by getting it transferred in his name, he is liable to pay the amount assessed in the final assessment proceedings. 5. In this case, it is to be noted that the Service Connection, which was in the name of the vendor of the petitioner, was inspected much before the purchase by the petitioner. On the date of purchase of the petitioner, the assessment proceedings were pending. It appears that the vendor of the petitioner has sold the property in favour of the petitioner, without disclosing the case registered for the malpractice committed by him. Simply because the assessment proceedings were pending on the date of purchase, and as the case of malpractice was registered much prior to the purchase by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not liable to pay the loss assessed by the respondents on account of pilferage committed by the vendor of the petitioner. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner would not render any assistance to his case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the aforesaid judgments, an application was filed by the purchaser of the premises for grant of fresh connection, but in this case, the petitioner has not filed any such application, but he is continuing the same Service Connection which was given to the vendor of the petitioner. Asmuch as the petitioner is availing the Service Connection which was obtained by his vendor, he is liable to pay the loss assessed on account of the pilferage committed by his vendor. In a case of this nature where it appears that the vendor of the petitioner has suppressed pending of assessment proceedings on account of the pilferage, whether the petitioner is liable to pay additional charges, is a matter to be considered by the respondents. 6. Asmuch as the competent authority has passed the final assessment proceedings, assessing the loss sustained by respondents at Rs.31,175/-, and as the vendor of the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.24,395/- pursuant to the provisional assessment order, I dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents to continue power supply to the petitioner on payment of balance amount of Rs.6,780/-. So far as payment of 2% additional charges on the arrears as per condition No.39.13 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply is concerned, I permit the petitioner to make a representation to the 2nd respondent within a period of four weeks from today for waiver of 2% additional charges. On filing such representation, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case for waiver of additional charges, as contemplated under Condition No.39.13 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, pass appropriate orders thereon, and communicate the same to the petitioner. Payment or otherwise of the amount on account of 2% additional charges, shall be subject to outcome of the orders to be passed by the 2nd respondent. 7. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th June 2009 ajr [1] 1995 (1) SCALE 143 [2] (2004) 3 SCC 587