1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board, now the Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited, to grant new electric domestic connection to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner claims to have become the owner of the property on the basis of a compromise petition filed in a title suit for partition of property between the father of the petitioner and others, pursuant to which a final decree was drawn up on 25.7.2003. Subsequently the father of the petitioner died in the month of July, 2006. After the death of the father of the petitioner the petitioner decided to shift to her own house along with her children and accordingly applied for a domestic electric connection before the respondent Board on 2.3.2012 having completed all the formalities on her account. The petitioner having not got the electric connection has approached this Court.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board the stand taken is that the premises were inspected by the Junior Electrical Engineer who informed that on the said premises there was outstanding due in the name of Shankar Rai having Account No.187973 under LTIS category of service which stood disconnected on account of outstanding energy dues of Rs.2,03,473/-, in support of which the last bill dated 4.3.2007 showing disconnection has been enclosed as Annexure-R/B to the counter affidavit. It is thus the stand of the Board that in terms of Clause 4.15(vi) of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007 the petitioner being the owner of the premises is duty bound to ensure the payment of the dues of electricity by the tenant before the tenant vacates the premises and thus would not be entitled to a new electric connection until the same was done.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the distribution licensee is bound to give supply of electricity to any premises within one month from the receipt of the application and on failure to supply the same within the said statutory fixed period it shall be liable to a penalty extending to one thousand rupees for each day of default. It is also submitted by learned counsel that in terms of Section 56(2) of the Act no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity and, therefore, since more than two years have passed the respondents cannot deny the electric connection to the petitioner.

6. It is also the stand of learned counsel that under Clause 4.1 of the Electricity Supply Code the respondents are obliged to give supply of electricity to the petitioner as the arrears of electricity are not those of any associate or relative of the petitioner.

7. Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel that Clause 4.15(vi) of the Electricity Supply Code, 2007 has no application in the present matter as the present matter arose before the enforcement of the said Supply Code.

8. In support of his stand learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Rekha Gupta vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others : 1999(3) PLJR 222, in paragraphs 8, 11 and 12 of which it has been held as follows :

“8. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that in case of providing electric connection to the tenant permission of the landlord is taken on requisition form and electric connection is provided in the premises. Therefore, the landlord or purchaser thereof shall be liable to pay electrical dues against the erstwhile consumer and unless dues are paid no fresh connection can be provided. In this regard it would be pertinent to mention herein that for p