IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 922 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20/07/2007 in WP NO : 5380 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Sujata Gupta W/o.Harish Chandra Gupta R/o.13-2/4, Gupta Gardens, Ramantapur, Hyderabad. 2 The divisional Engineer (Operation) Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited Uppal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderbad. 3 The Assistant Engineer (Operation), Pragathi Nagar, Ramantapur, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Engineer (Operation), Pragathi Ngar, Ramantapur, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Superintending Engineer Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, R.R. District, South Zone, Gunrock, Secunderabad. 2 The Divisional Engineer (Operation) Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Habsiguda, R.R. District, Hyderabad 3 The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation) Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Uppal, R.R. District, Hyderabad 4 The Assistant Engineer (Operation), Pragathi Nagar, Ramanthapur, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) WRIT APPEAL NO : 66 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20/07/2007 in WP NO : 2681 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Sujata Gupta, W/o. Harish Chandra Gupta, R/o. 13-2/4, Gupta Gardens, Ramantapur, Hyderabad. 2 Suresh Chandra Gupta, S/o. Late Kedarnath, R/o. 13-2/11, Gupta Gardens, Ramantapur, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Chairman and Managing Director, Central Power Distribution Companmy of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Singareni Bhavan, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Central Power Distribution Companmy of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Ranga Reddy district, South Zone, Gunrock, secunderabad. 3 The Divisional Engineer (OPeration0 Central Power Distribution Companmy of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Habsiguda,Ranga Reddy district, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation), Central Power Distribution Companmy of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Uppal,Ranga Reddy district, Hyderabad. 5 The Assistant Engineer (Operation), Pragathi Nagar, Ramanthapur, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 6 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 7 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District ,Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO : 814 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20/07/2007 in WP NO : 2683 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Sujata Gupta W/o. Harish Chandra Gupta R/o. 13-2/4, Gupta Gardens, Ramantapur, Hyderabad. 2 Suresh Chandra Gupta S/o. Late Kedarnath R/o. 13-2/11, Gupta Gardens, Ramantapur, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Chiarman & Managing Director, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Singareni Bhavan, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, R.R. District, South Zone, Gunrock, Secunderabad. 3 The Divisional Engineer (Operation) Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Habsiguda, R.R. District, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation) Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Uppal, R.R. District, Hyderabad. 5 The Assisant Engineer (Operation) Pragathi Nagar, Ramantapur, R.R. District, Hyderabad. 6 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 7 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal, R.R. District, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO : 819 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20/07/2007 in WP NO : 2606 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Sujatha Gupta, W/o. Harish Chandra Gupta, R/o. 13-2/4, Gupta Gardens, Ramantapur, Hyderabad. 2 Suresh Chandra Gupta, S/o. Late Kedarnath, R/o. 13-2/11, Gupta Gardens, Ramantapur, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Chairman & Managing Director, Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Singareni Bhavan, Khairatabad,Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, R.R. District, South Zone, Gunrock, Secunderabad. 3 The Divisional Engineer (Operation) Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Habsiguda, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation) Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 5 The Assistant Engineer (operation), Pragathi Nagar, Ramanthapur, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 6 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 7 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOS.922 OF 2008 AND 66, 814 & 819 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) These four appeals are amenable to a common disposal. The appellants in Writ Appeal Nos.66, 814 and 819 of 2009 are one Sujata Gupta and her father-in-law, Suresh Chandra Gupta, while in Writ Appeal No.922 of 2008, Sujata Gupta alone figures as the appellant. Writ Appeal No.922 of 2008 arises out of the order dated 20.07.2007 passed by the learned single Judge in Review WPMP No.19833 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.5380 of 2007, whereas Writ Appeal Nos.66, 814 and 819 of 2009 arise out of the common order dated 20.07.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.2681, 2683 and 2606 of 2007 respectively. Facts in brief. The lands in Survey Nos.7/1, 7/2, 8/3 and 8/4 of Ramanthapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, were owned by one Nirmala Kumari, the mother-in-law of Sujata Gupta and the wife of Suresh Chandra Gupta, the appellants in these appeals. During her life time, Nirmala Kumari constructed sheds in this property and leased them out to three parties, namely, M/s.Sheela Ice Factory, M/s.Meena Ice Factory and M/s.Swapna Ice Factory, (hereinafter referred to as “lessees”). These lessees obtained electricity supply service connections in their own names from the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for brevity, ‘APSEB’). Service connection No.0702-03564 pertains to M/s.Sheela Ice Factory and is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.2681 of 2007 from which Writ Appeal No.66 of 2009 arises. Service connection No.0702-01711 pertains to M/s.Meena Ice Factory and is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.2683 of 2007 from which Writ Appeal No.814 of 2009 arises. Service connection No.0702-03645 pertains to M/s.Swapna Ice Factory and is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.2606 of 2007 and consequently, Writ Appeal No.819 of 2009. The appellants claim inheritance to the subject properties through the will dated 08.01.1998 said to have been executed by Nimala Kumari, who died on 16.04.1998. It is the case of the appellants that they objected to the continuance of power supply to the lessees, as arrears of consumption charges were not paid by them and there was also contravention of the conditions of the lease. It is their further case that the lessees vacated the premises without informing them and in spite of their specific request, the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited (for brevity, ‘APCPDCL’), being the successor-in-interest of the erstwhile APSEB, failed to dismantle the power connection for a long time. While so, APCPDCL initiated steps for recovery of the arrears of consumption and other charges due in respect of the three service connections mentioned above. Action was also initiated with the aid of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, under the Revenue Recovery Act and steps were taken for attachment of the appellants’ properties. Challenging the said action, the appellants filed the three writ petitions which were allowed by the common order dated 20.07.2007. Aggrieved by an observation made by the learned Judge in the said Order, the successful petitioners are in appeal. In Writ Petition No.5380 of 2007, Sujata Gupta, being aggrieved by the inaction of the APCPDCL in granting a Non-Domestic power supply connection of 5 KV to her premises bearing Door No.13-2/5 at Gupta Gardens, Ramanthapur, Ranga Reddy District, sought a direction to sanction the said connection. In the first instance, by order dated 16.03.2007 the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider her application for providing a service connection to the premises in question within a time frame making the same subject to the outcome of Writ Petition No.2606 of 2007. However, upon the review application filed by the APCPDCL in Review WPMP No.19833 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.5380 of 2007, the learned single Judge took note of clause 5.9.6 of the ‘General Terms and Conditions of Supply’ (for brevity, ‘GTCS’) and modified the earlier order dated 16.03.2007, stating that as and when the arrears in respect of the previous service connections pertaining to the subject premises were cleared, the APCPDCL shall issue a fresh power supply connection to Sujata Gupta. Aggrieved thereby, she is in appeal before us in Writ Appeal No.922 of 2008. The case of the appellants before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.2681, 2683 and 2606 of 2007 was that they or their predecessor-in-interest had not personally obtained the service connections for supply of electricity and that the lessees themselves had obtained such connections in their own names. They pointed out that they were not parties to the agreements between the lessees and the erstwhile APSEB. They therefore denied liability to pay the arrears of the consumption and other charges which were left behind by the lessees and questioned the action of the authorities in proceeding against their properties for recovery thereof. The APCPDCL contested the claim of the appellants before the learned single Judge by filing a counter. It was pointed out that the appellants fulfil the requirements to qualify as “consumer” and as such they are liable for the consumption charges arrears due to the APCPDCL. It was stated that the partners of the lessee firms were none other than the close relations of the appellants and that in spite of it’s best efforts, the APCPDCL could not trace out the said persons. However, in view of the legal position obtaining under the relevant provisions of the GTCS and the applicable statutes, the APCPDCL asserted that the appellants being the owners of the premises were bound to clear the arrears. The Electricity Act, 2003 defines “consumer” under Section 2(15) as hereunder: “ “consumer” means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be.” The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the GTCS [clause (2.5)] contain the same definition of “consumer”. The learned Judge having referred to the above definition was of the opinion that merely because the appellants answer the description of a “consumer”, they cannot be held liable to pay the arrears of their lessees. According to the learned Judge, unless they also enter into an agreement which binds them with a set of legal consequences, the appellants cannot be subjected to such a liability. This finding of the learned Judge does not call for any interference by us in these appeals, in as much as the APCPDCL has not chosen to file an appeal against the same. Basing on the said conclusion, the learned Judge held that the appellants could not be compelled to clear the arrears that had arisen on account of the lessees. Accordingly, the learned Judge allowed the three writ petitions striking down the action of the respondent authorities in seeking to recover from the appellants the arrears of consumption and other charges due in respect of the subject service connections furnished to the appellants’ premises, albeit in the names of their lessees, and also the action taken for attachment of their properties under the Revenue Recovery Act. However, the learned Judge, while clarifying that it would be open to the respondent authorities to proceed against the persons in whose names power connections were released, concluded that the premises shall not be extended power supply unless such arrears were cleared. It is this concluding directive that spurred the successful petitioners in the writ petitions to come before us with these appeals. This concluding observation of the learned Judge in the common order in the three writ petitions was obviously relatable to the order passed by him on the same day in the review application filed by the APCPDCL in the other Writ Petition, W.P.No.5380 of 2007. Relevant to note, in the first instance by order dated 16.03.2007, the learned Judge had directed in W.P.No.5380 of 2007 that the APCPDCL should consider the application made by Sujata Gupta for a new service connection to her premises within a time frame making the same subject to the result of Writ Petition No.2606 of 2007. However, upon the APCPDCL seeking review, duly pointing out that the GTCS and more specifically, clause 5.9.6 thereof posited that the past arrears of a previous service connection to the same premises should be cleared before the APCPDCL undertook to furnish a fresh connection, the learned Judge modified the earlier direction stating that the application of Sujata Gupta for a fresh power supply connection should be considered after the clearance of the arrears in respect of the three service connections mentioned supra. In this regard, it would be relevant to extract clause 5.9.6 of the GTCS: “Clause 5.9.6.: Dismantlement of Service Line after termination of Agreement: On the termination of the LT or HT agreement, the company is entitled to dismantle the service line and remove the materials, Meter, cut out etc. After termination of the Agreement, the consumer shall be treated as a fresh applicant for the purpose of giving supply to the same premises when applied for by him provided there are no dues against the pervious service connection.” The rationale behind clause 5.9.6 is not far to gather. If a consumer, being a lessee, avails electricity supply without paying for the same and thereafter absconds and the same is held to be without any legal consequences, at least as against the premises for the purpose of future power supply, such instances would no doubt abound and it would not be in public interest to saddle such losses upon the Electricity Supplying Companies. It is therefore logical that such premises should not be furnished power supply till the clearance of the arrears. This would be one means of assuring that the owner of such premises would be mindful of the whereabouts of his lessee and would take adequate care to see that such lessee does not leave behind unpaid arrears of electricity consumption charges. Taking note of the above clause, the learned Judge opined that as long as the arrears remain unpaid, the power supply could not be extended to the premises in question. Stating so, the learned Judge modified the earlier order dated 16.03.2007, and directed the APCPDCL to undertake issuance of a fresh power supply connection only after the clearance of the arrears in respect of the subject premises. The same principle was applied by the learned Judge in the common order passed in the three other writ petitions. In the light of clause 5.9.6 of the GTCS which is not under challenge herein, the appellants cannot seek a direction to the contra. We therefore find no error in the common order dated 20.07.2007 of the learned Judge in the three writ petitions or in the order dated 20.07.2007 in the Review WPMP, holding that the appellants are entitled to fresh power supply connection in respect of the subject premises only after the clearance of the arrears due as against the earlier service connections pertaining to the same premises. The Writ Appeals are therefore found to be devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J _________ July, 2009. VGSR