( 1 ) THE property bearing Sy. No. 43/h, Old Sy. No. 43 situated at kotehal Village, Basavapattana Panchayat Limits, Channagiri Taluk, davanagere District, belongs to M/s. K. G. N. Rice Industries Limited. They had availed loan from KS. F. C. to set up the said industry. They had also obtained power supply from Karnataka Electricity Board. When they committed default in repayment of loan to K. S. F. C. , the k. S. F. C. in exercise of its power under Section 29 of the State Financial corporations Act, 1951, seized the entire unit and sold the same in public auction. As the petitioner was the highest bidder the KS. F. C. sold the entire property including the power connection to the petitioner. A registered sale deed came to be executed on 30-9-2003 as per annexure-B.

( 2 ) AS the erstwhile owner had committed default in payment of electricity charges the electricity had been disconnected. The K. E. B. had filed a suit in O. S. No. 2 of 2003 before the Civil Judge Court, davanagere, for recovery of the electricity dues from the said previous owner. The said suit is still pending enquiry.

( 3 ) THE petitioner made an application to the respondents for fresh electricity connection on 14-11-2004. The respondents issued annexure-A, dated 17-12-2004 refusing to supply electricity on the ground that as the petitioner has not paid a sum of Rs, 1,86,304-00 which is arrears due to the respondents from the previous owner. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the said endorsement contends that the respondents are under obligation to provide fresh electricity connection to the petitioner. As the petitioner is not a party insofar as the claim of arrears is concerned, the said claim cannot be enforced against the petitioner. In support of his contention he relies on two judgments of the Supreme Court. One in the case of Isha marbles v Bihar State Electricity Board and Others , which was followed by yet another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ahrnedabad Electricity Company Limited v Gujarat Inns Private Limited and Others. Therefore, he submits that the respondents have no right to demand the arrears of electricity due from the previous owner in respect of the said unit.

( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the law laid down in the aforesaid two judgments has no application to the facts of this case. In the sale deed which is executed in favour of the petitioner the petitioner has agreed to pay its liability of arrears of electricity charges. Secondly, he contended that in view of Regulation 4. 34 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988, a right is conferred on the respondents to demand and collect the arrears payable by the erstwhile owner before giving connection. In the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court it is held that in the absence of any statutory provision or a charge created on the property the purchaser is not under obligation to discharge the arrears and therefore, he submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for.

( 6 ) IN the Isha Marbles, case referred to supra, the Supreme Court held that:"where the premises comes to be owned or occupied by the auction purchaser, when such purchaser seeks supply of electric energy he cannot be called upon to clear the past arrears as a condition precedent to supply. There is no charge over the property. What matter is the contract entered into by the erstwhile consumer with the Board. The Board cannot seek enforcement of contractual liability against the third party". Therefore, it was held that:"it is impossible to impose on the purchasers a liability which was not incurred by them. Though the auction purchasers came to purchase the property after disconnection but they cannot be "consumer or occupier" within the meaning of the above provisions till a contract is entered into"