R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.

( 1 ) HEARD. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

( 2 ) THE petitioners seek mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to grant forthwith the electricity connection (high tension consumer) to the petitioner No. 1 company at its premises, namely plots B-2 and B-3, MIDC, parabhani.

( 3 ) UNDISPUTED facts in the matter are, that a co-operative spinning mill known as "prabhavati Co-operative Spinning Mill Ltd. ", which existed on the said plots, was ordered to be liquidated by the authorities under the maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter called as the "cooperative Act" and as a result of the liquidation proceedings the assets of the said society were put to public sale by inviting tenders. The petitioner No. 1 submitted its tender along with some other parties and those tenders were opened on 25-3-2004 and the petitioner No. 1's tender having been found to be the highest, same was accepted by the respondent No. 2, the Liquidator and the petitioner No. 1 was informed to deposit a total amount of Rs. 4. 30 crores within 30 days by demand draft to get possession of the property. The petitioner-company accordingly deposited the entire amount of Rs. 4. 30 crores on 29-4-2004. The respondent No. 2 thereupon executed an agreement dated 8-7-2004 with the petitioner No. 1 confirming the petitioner No. 1 was the highest bidder and its bid having been accepted and handed over the possession of the assets along with the said plots to the petitioners. Thereafter an agreement of sale was also executed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner No. 1 on 26-7-2004 and since then the possession of the said plots is with the petitioners. The final deed of assignment, however, is yet to be executed by the respondent No. 2.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that the above referred Prabhavati spinning Mill was closed down more than five years back and the entire plant and machineries were not in use since then, as a result the major portion thereof had been rusted and rendered non-usable. Consequently, there was overhauling of the plant and machineries, including replacement of certain parts which resulted in further expenditure of Rs. 4 crores to the petitioners. It is further case of the petitioners that the Prabhavati spinning Mill was supplied with the electricity by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 but on account of the said company having gone into liquidation and thus thee was default in payment of the consumption charges by the said Mill, the electricity supply to the premises was disconnected. Upon overhauling of the plant and machineries by the petitioners, the respondent No. 4 was requested by the petitioners to supply the electricity. Inspite of repeated letters, however, there was no response from the respondents nor release of the electricity supply. Meanwhile, the said plots were transferred to the petitioner-company by the MIDC on 4-2-2005. The respondents, however, refused to grant connection on the ground that no such connection would be granted unless the arrears of the Prabhavati Spinning Mill are cleared.

( 5 ) IT is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 is an independent company and has acquired the property of the Prabhavati spinning Mill in public auction and it cannot be saddled with the responsibility or liability of the Prabhavati Spinning Mill to pay the arrears of consumption charges relating to the period prior to the date of auction on which the property of the said mill was purchased by the petitioners. Besides, the electricity supply which is asked for by the petitioners is by way of a new connection and it has nothing to do with the connection which was granted to the Prabhavati Spinning Mill. It is their further contention that it is the statutory duty of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to supply the electricity to the petitioner-company and in the absence of such supply of electricity, the petitioners are no