An auction purchaser of property is liable for unpaid electricity dues under statutory regulations, despite claims of their inapplicability, and compliance with amnesty scheme terms is mandatory for obtaining new connections.

Judgment :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the communication dated 6 December, 2024 issued by respondent no. 2-Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (for short “MSEDCL”) whereby the petitioners (for short “petitioner”) have been called upon to pay an amount of Rs.2,07,24,237/- in relation to the charges for the electricity consumed being categorized as a theft case, failing which the petitioner’s online application dated 11 October 2024 under the “Mahavitaran Abhay Yojana, 2024” (for short “Amnesty Scheme”) shall not be considered for approval and will be rejected after 13 December 2024 without further intimation.

3. The impugned communication is issued on the basis of Circular no.7 of 2024 dated 3 December 2024, issued by MSEDCL titled as ‘Extension to Mahavitaran Abhay Yojana-2024’ whereby the Amnesty Scheme earlier floated was extended till 31 December 2024, with an additional provision, that in case of permanently disconnected (PD) consumers having theft cases, 100% interest will be waived off, on making payment of 100% theft assessment amount. The validity of the said circular has also been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the impugned communication dated 6 December 2024 is issued to the petitioner on the basis of said circular. In these circumstances, the petitioner has prayed that a writ be issued to MSEDCL and its officers, who are arrayed as respondent nos. 2 to 4 to accept the petitioner’s application under the Amnesty Scheme and without insisting for compliance of the additional condition imposed in the impugned circular dated 3 December, 2024.

Facts

4. The relevant facts as averred in the petition needs to be noted: The petitioner is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing of mild steel ingots. The petitioner was in need of a manufacturing unit to expand its existing business, when it came across a public notice dated 24 January, 2008, issued by a secured creditor qua industrial unit of one “Vishwas Steel Ltd.” being industrial unit at Plot No. J-79, Tarapur Industrial Area, MIDC Sarvali Palghar, District Thane, (for short “said premises”) inviting bids for the sale of the said premises under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act’) and the rules framed thereunder on “as is where is basis and whatever there is basis”. The petitioner participated in the auction and acquired the said premises. A sale certificate dated 12 May, 2008 was issued in favour of the petitioner. Consequent to the sale certificate, a registered agreement dated 5 January, 2010 was executed between the secured creditor and petitioner No.1 conveying the right, title and interest in the said premises in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was also put in possession of the premises on 12 May, 2008.

5. Since the electricity connection at the said premises was permanently disconnected with effect from 1 April 2001 and in order to commence its business/manufacturing activity, the petitioner made an application to MSEDCL (erstwhile MSEB) requesting for a fresh electricity supply connection in the petitioner’s own name. As MSEDCL failed to process the petitioner’s application, the petitioner’s made a representation to the