THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20455 of 2003 Dated:20.07.2010 Between: Duggirala Venkateshwara Rao .. Petitioner And The Assistant Engineer, Elecl. Opn. CPDC of Andhra Pradesh Limited, B.P. Pally, Nalgonda District and others .. Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Duggirala Venkateshwara Rao assailing the action of the respondents in insisting him to pay the dues payable by the earlier owner, Sri Rama Metal Industries, Deshmukh Village, Pochampally Mandal, Nalgonda District, for release of fresh connection. Sri Rama Metal Industries, Deshmukh Village, availed loan from the Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation. Since Sri Rama Metal Industries failed to pay the liability, the Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation exercised powers under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation Act, 1959, and put the Unit for auction. The petitioner herein purchased the Unit in public auction. Thereafter, he made an application to the respondents for supply of fresh connection. The respondents insisted the petitioner to pay the arrears due by the earlier proprietor of the Unit. The action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to pay the amount due by the earlier owner of the Unit is assailed in this Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a purchaser of the Unit in the public auction, he cannot be made liable for the arrears if any towards electricity consumption charges payable by the earlier proprietor of the Unit. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in M/s. Sri Rama Par Boiled and Modern Rice Mill, Chandur, Nalgonda District V. A.P.S.E.B., represented by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and others[1] and the decision in Krishivali Khandsari Sugar V. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Vidyut Soudha, 2nd Floor, Hyderbad.[2] The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that subsequent to 2006, a Clause has been introduced in the General Terms and Condition making the subsequent owners of the Unit liable and prior to that there was no Clause in the General Terms and Conditions of the agreement. Indisputably, this instant case is relatable to prior to 2006. I n Isha Marbles V. Bihar State Electricity Board and another[3], wherein it has been held that unless a regulation stipulate the terms and conditions of supply of electricity in nature, no demand can be made from the subsequent purchase of the Unit. In view of the settled proposition, the demand made by the respondents with regard to the payment of arrears of Rs.1,06,000/-, as a condition precedent for giving fresh connection, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to release electricity supply to the petitioner’s industry without insisting the arrears of Rs.1,06,000/- payable by the earlier owner of the Unit. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 20.07.2010 KH [1] W.P.No.13122 of 1989, dated 22.06.1999 [2] W.P.No.6433 of 1974, dated 29.11.1974 [3] (1995) 2 SCC 648