R.N.Prasad, J.

1. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in letter No. 241 dated 23-6-1998, Annexure-1, whereby respondent No. 4 rejected the petition tiled by the petitioner for new electric connection dated 5-5-1998 and also for issue of a direction to the respondents to provide electric connection to the petitioner forthwith.

2. One Dr. Mrs. Saroj Rani Sinhawas owner of Municipal Survey Plot Nos. 1367, 1368 and 1369, Holding No. 1248/845 of 1984-85 situated at Mohalla East Lohanipur, Patoa. She executed power of attorney in favour of B.N. Sinha, respondent No. 5. One Raj Kumar S/o Ram Swaroop Singh was a tenant in the said premises. He established a press, namely, Anokha Printing Works. He was provided electric connection bearing consumer No. 16-32605406-A. He did not pay electric dues and vacated the premises in the year 1995-96. The petitioner purchased a portion of the said building measuring an area 10 dhur by a registered sale-deed dated 17-12-1997 for a consideration of Rs. 90,000.00 and came in possession over the purchased portion since then. The petitioner filed an application dated 5-5-1998 for new electric connection which was rejected vide order dated 23-6-1998, Annexure-1, on the ground that there were electric dues to the tune of Rs. 80,032.00 against Anokha Printing Works due to which line was disconnected. The owner of the house has sold the premises to different persons. Unless dues are recovered, it. is not possible to provide electric connection to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is that she is bona fide purchaser and has no relation/connection with Raj Kumar, the proprietor of Anokha Printing Works. The respondent-Board has also initiated a certificate proceeding bearing No. 4107 of 1995-96 against Raj Kumar for realisation of electric dues. Raj Kumar, the owner of Anokha Printing Works has also filed a petition before the Electricity Board for settlement of dues. The Respondent-Board cannot deny electric connection to the petitioner on the ground of dues against erstwhile consumer.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 wherein stand has been taken that neither the petitioner, who is a bona fide purchaser, nor the vendor is liable for payment of electric dues against occupier/tenant, namely, Raj Kumar, the owner of Anokha Printing Works as there was a contract between Electricity Board and the defaulter consumer for supply of electricity and payment thereof, the same cannot be enforced against the vendee or vendor.

4. A separate counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Electricity Board-respondent No. 1 stating therein that the petitioner purchased a portion of the building in which Anokha Printing Works was running. Raj Kumar was proprietor of Anokha Printing Works, who was tenant of Dr. Mrs. Saroj Rani Sinha, the vendor of the petitioner. Electric connection was provided in the aforesaid premises in the name of Raj Kumar, proprietor of Anokha Printing Works. There were electrical dues against the owner of Anokha Printing Works. Electric connection is provided to the premises owned or occupied by tenant. In the requisite form, particulars of the premises are to be mentioned and the Consumer has to declare nature of right, title and possession and in case if the applicant is a tenant electric connection is provided after due permission of the landlord only with a view that electrical dues may be realised from the landlord. Clause (5)(d) of Sec. 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), says that Purchaser is bound to pay all public charges and rent which may become payable in respect of property, the principal money due on any incumbrances subject to which property is sold, and the interest thereon afterwards accruing due. A buyer cannot escape the liability in case seller evades payment. Therefore, unless a buyer clears all the previous dues, the Board is not obliged to provide fresh connect