The central legal point established in the judgment is that the responsibility to clear outstanding electricity dues lies with the vendor, and the purchaser is only held responsible if they are a relative of the person against whom arrears are pending.

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prakash Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents-Bihar State Electricity Board and its functionaries.

2. The writ petition was filed seeking direction to the respondent-Board to grant domestic electric connection for the premises of the petitioner, for which she had filed an appropriate application in the prescribed form and also deposited the prescribed fee on 14.04.2007 but the same has remained pending.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Electricity Board admitting the case of the petitioner as regarding the application being filed on 14.04.2007 together with the application fee of Rs. 30/-, security deposit of Rs. 1300/-, service connection charge for Rs. 180/- and meter testing fee for Rs. 50/-. It is next contended that upon examination of the request made by the petitioner it came to knowledge of the respondent-Board that in the year 1965 the ground floor of the premises in question had been rented out to one Babu Hazari Lal by the vendor of the present property. The said tenant after obtaining NDS II electric connection bearing consumer No. 3351/29506400 went into arrears of electricity dues and ultimately the electric connection was disconnected on 27.05.2004 for non payment of the arrear dues of Rs. 22,768/- and finally the meter was removed on 10.05.2006. The said fact is manifest from Annexure-7.

4. It is the stand of the respondent-Board that although the petitioner purchased the property upon execution of the sale deed by the vendor on 16.01.2006 but the arrears of electricity dues as regarding the ground floor portion of the house continued to remain as such and hence the connection has not been provided to the petitioner.

5. Mr. Prakash Kumar in support of the contention relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2009)1 SCC 210 in the case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors. Versus DVS Steels and Alloys Private Limited and Ors. more particularly to paragraphs 14 and 15 thereof in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deliberating on a similar issue have upheld the demand by the Board from the purchaser. He thus submits that it was the duty of the purchaser to have ensured that there was no electricity arrears pending against the premises in question before making purchase of the property and that the petitioner being vendee of the property in question having failed to ensure the same, he is liable to pay the electricity dues pertaining to the property in question.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner responding to the contentions of the learned counsel for the Board relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 9 SCC 145 (Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Hanuman Rice Mills), and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking note of its earlier judgment reported in (2009)1 SCC 210 in the case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors. Versus DVS Steels and Alloys Private Limited and Ors. has categorically laid down the circumstances in paragraph 9 of the judgment, under which the purchaser can be saddled with the arrear of electricity dues pertaining to the property.

7. Paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board versus Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri & Ors., runs as follows:-

“9. The High Court held that the demand was untenable in view of the decision in Isha Marbles. In Isha Marbles this court held that in the absence of a charge over the property in respect of the previous electricity dues, and in the absence of any statutory rules authorizing a demand for the dues of the previous occupant, an auction purchaser seeking supply of electrical energy by way of a fresh connection, cannot be called upon to clear the pre-sale arrears, as a condition precedent for granting fresh connection. This court further held that an Electricity Board could not seek the enforcement of t