JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---The petitioner is running an industry in the name and style "M/s. Aurangabad Industrial Associates". M/s. K.K. Industries was holding the Plot No. G-25 situated at Chikhalthana, Aurangabad, which is an industrial area, developed by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. M/s. K.K. Industries had obtained a loan from the Maharashtra State Finance Corporation, to run the industry on the said plot. As M/s. K.K. Industries was in arrears of repayment of loan, the rights of M/s. K.K. Industries on the plant and machinery from the said plot was put up for auction through the Court and the petitioner being the highest bidder, purchased that property in the Court auction so as to start its own industry. The petitioner made an application to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"), for reconnecting the electrical energy to the said premises which was disconnected by the Board, because of failure of payment of electricity charges by M/s. K.K. Industries. On receiving this application from the petitioner, the Board communicated to the petitioner that there were arrears of electricity charges which were not paid by M/s. K.K. Industries and the petitioner was directed that on payment of those arrears, the electricity supply will be reconnected. Taking an exception to this stand of the Board, the petitioner has filed this petition, contending that the petitioner is no way liable to pay the electricity charges, which the Board is demanding on the ground that the previous owner of the property had not paid the electricity charges and the petitioner has prayed that the Board be directed to give him electricity connection without insisting for payment of arrears of electricity charges.

2. Heard Shri S.A. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.S. Choudhary, learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 1 and Shri H.T. Joshi, Counsel for the respondent No. 4 Board. So far as the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 are concerned, their names are deleted because the relief claimed against them are not pressed by the petitioner, in this petition.

3. Shri S.A. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that there was a proclamation for sale of property. As per that proclamation, the property was free from any encumbrance created by the Board. The petitioner, therefore, purchased the property in the Court auction. The petitioner was not at all aware about the arrears of electricity charges which were to be paid by the previous owner, namely M/s. K.K. Industries. The petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and, therefore, he is not liable to pay electricity charges.

4. Shri Deshmukh, further, argued that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the Board, for the Board to claim electricity charges from the petitioner. He further argued that no charge was created on the property of M/s. K.K. Industries for the electricity charges payable by M/s. K.K. Industries and, therefore, the petitioner who is an auction purchaser, cannot be called upon to pay the arrears.

5. Shri H.T. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, has argued that M/s. K.K. Industries had not paid the electricity charges. The petitioner is the successor of M/s. K.K. Industries and, therefore, before obtaining the reconnection of electricity supply, the petitioner must satisfy the arrears payable by M/s. K.K. Industries. For this proposition, the learned Counsel relied on the Condition No. 23 of the Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges for Supply of Electrical Energy, framed by the Board. The said condition reads as follows :-

"23. ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER OF AGREEMENT :

a) The consumer shall not without previous consent in writing of the Board, assign, transfer or part with the benefit of his agreement with the Board nor shall the consumer in any manner part with or create any partial or separate interest thereunder.

b) A consumer who commits breach of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document