HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 28040 OF 2010 DATED 26th November, 2014.
BETWEEN M/s Durga Rice Mills, Aludu Village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District. Rep. by its Prop. P.Ramulu ….Petitioner And The Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited, Rep. by its Chief Managing Director, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam and ors.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 28040 OF 2010
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner purchased a sick rice mill by name M/s. Vijay Modern Rice Mill belonging to a proprietary concern through a registered sale deed dated 26.03.2003 and the said mill was having L.T. Service connection bearing No. 93 (Category. III). Ever since the date of its purchase, the petitioner is paying the electricity bills and there are no dues or arrears payable by it in respect of the said service connection. While so, the third respondent disconnected the power supply on 31.10.2010 to the petitioner-rice mill on the ground that there are dues in respect of its previous owner. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in disconnecting the power supply and demand made for recovery of dues from the previous owner.
This Court by order dated 15.11.2010 directed the respondents to restore the power supply to the petitioner’s rice mill and pursuant to the said order the petitioner’s rice mill has been provided with power supply.
The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that originally service connection was released in the name of M/s. Vijaya Modern Rice Mill vide Service Connection No. 93 under Category III,. On 06.09.1991 the respondents inspected the said service connection and it was noticed that there were dues and thereby a provisional assessment order was passed for an amount of Rs.2,13,155.70 Ps and later final assessment order was passed for an amount of Rs,.2,14,129.80Ps on 31.05.1992.
The previous owner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 13606 of 1991 and the same was dismissed by this Court by order dated 23.10.1991. The petitioner states that the said rice mill was running in the name and style of M/s.Durga Modern Rice Mill since 2003, however, the respondents have not been informed about the change of name of the rice mill as well as its sale transaction in favour of the present petitioner. The final assessment order was served on the original consumer/previous owner on 31.08.2010 and the same was acknowledged by him on 22.09.2010. After expiry of one month period, the service connection was disconnected on 01.11.2010.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner purchased the rice mill in the year 2003, he is not concerned with the arrears of the previous owner and the same could have been recovered in the year 1992 itself from the previous owner.
A similar and identical issue was considered by this Court in the judgment dated 25.07.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 28271 of 2008 wherein it was held that if the seller fails to clear the dues, the purchaser of the property cannot be made liable for payment of arrears payable by the seller. As per specific statutory provision in Clause 8.4 of General terms and conditions of supply, the seller of the property has to clear all the dues to the Electricity department before selling such property. If the seller fails to clear the dues, the company may refuse electricity supply to the premises through the already existing connection or refuse to give a new connection to the same premises till all the dues to the company are cleared. If at all the respondents wanted to recover the dues, it should have gone to the Civil Court. Notwithstanding the same, the respondents cannot keep quite and try to recover the dues from the purchaser. It was also held in the said judgment that when dues is a subject matter in issue, law of limitation comes into play. In the case on hand, there is no provision or clause in regard thereto in the terms and conditions of supply while supplying electricity to the petitioner-mill. In the circumstances, the impugned demand against the petitioner cannot be maintained and the respondents are liberty to recover the due amount from the original owner to whom the final assessment order was served.
The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 26th November, 2014. Msnrx