HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 5867 OF 2005 DATED 2nd December, 2014.
BETWEEN M/s. Spintex Mills Limited, Throvagunta, Ongole, rep. by its prop. V.N.S.Prasad ….Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Ongle and ors.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 5867 OF 2005
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner purchased a unit, known as, M/s. Roto Spinners Private Limited. The said unit was given a term loan by the A.P. State Financial Corporation and when the said unit committed default, it was seized on 03.12.1996 and in the auction conducted by the A.P. State Financial Corporation, the petitioner purchased the said unit and possession of the same was delivered to the petitioner on 04.09.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for power connection under H.T. Category and the respondents estimated the development charges as well as the line charges for Rs.3,74,500/- and allotted a service connection treating the petitioner as a new consumer. The petitioner paid the amount of Rs.3,74,500/- in the month of April, 2003. The respondents also insisted the petitioner for payment of security deposit of Rs.30,000/- and the same has also been paid in the month of May, 2014. While so, in the month of July, 2004, the respondents orally informed the petitioner that an amount of Rs.75,761/- was due by the erstwhile owner of the petitioner-mills towards arrears of current consumption charges for the months of January, February, March and April, 1997. The petitioner submits that he purchased the unit in the auction held on 04.09.1999 and therefore it has nothing to do with the said arrears. Despite of the same, the first respondent sent letter dated 5.3.2005 demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.75,761/-. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition was filed.
The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that they sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 8.9.2004, however, the same was un-served. Again another notice was issued and the same was acknowledged by the petitioner on 02.12.2004. Since the petitioner purchased the unit having statutory dues, it (the petitioner) is liable to pay the amount in demand. The AP State Financial Corporation has clearly mentioned under Clause 23 of the notice that the Corporation is not liable to pay any dues statutory or otherwise and hence the petitioner alone is liable to pay the said amount.
Similar and identical issue was dealt with by this Court in Writ Petition No.28271 of 2008, dated 25.07.2014, wherein it was held as follows:
“In the instant case, Condition No.8.4 obligates the seller of the property to clear all the dues to the company 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 premises till all dues to the company are cleared. It is clear from the wording of the said condition that the responsibility is cast on the seller and in the case of sale of a sick unit, the seller would be in capable of complying with the above term. However the said condition does not disable the Company from recovering the dues when the arrears became due and before the unit was sold. The Company cannot keep quiet and try to recover the dues from the purchaser. The issue of limitation also crops up for consideration.”
In view thereof, the present Writ Petition is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. However it is for the respondents to take necessary action for recovery of the dues from the erstwhile owner of the petitioner-mills, if so advised.
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 2nd December, 2014. Msnrx