A licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is not entitled to refuse to supply electricity to a new consumer on the ground of non-payment of dues by a previous occupier.

Satya Brata Sinha, J. : The question which arises for consideration in this application is as to whether the petitioner's electrical connection is liable to be disconnected for non-payment of dues on the part of pre-occupier of the premises. The fact of the matter lies in a short compass.

2. The petitioner no. 1 which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act entered into AN agreement on 11.12.1992 with the owners of the property in question (Respondent nos. 7-11) for developing the same on certain terms and conditions. For the aforementioned purpose an application for sanction of the plan was applied for and granted by the Howrah Municipal Corporation, and pursuant thereto the construction of the building Started. An application was filed by the petitioner before the respondent-company for grant of temporary supply of electrical energy.

3. On 21.12.1993 the respondent-company 'intimated that a sum of Rs.1,50,085.95 p. is due from the erstwhile consumer. The petitioner was requested to pay the said dues failing which it was threatened that the electrical energy shall not be supplied at the said premises. However an inspection was held. The petitioner also deposited the security amount and the meter was installed. On 21.7.94 the petitioner received a notice that the outstanding dues of the erstwhile occupier is Rs. 49,50,481.61p., besides the delayed payment surcharge to be levied thereupon.

3A. On 22.7.1994 the petitioner made a representation alleging therein that they have no knowledge about the erstwhile consumer.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that as it has applied for a new connection, the respondent-company having a statutory duty to supply the electricity to the petitioner cannot refuse to do so on the ground that there allegedly existed an outstanding dues of one Bajranglal Kedia.

5. In its affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents stated that one Kiran Ice and Cold Storage, which was a proprietory concern of Bajranglal Kedia, took electrical connection. Its outstanding bills accumulated to the tune of Rs.49.50,481.61p. The respondent-company however was prevented from disconnecting the electrical energy in view of orders of injunction passed in several suits. The said electrical connection was eventually disconnected in July, 1992.

6. The petitioner allegedly applied for a temporary connection which was granted. It, however, demanded the aforementioned slim from the petitioners by a letter dated 21st December, 1993 whereupon the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount in instalments after they had obtained a new supply of electricity at the said premises. It is contended that by such payment the petitioners accepted that they were liable for the arrears and relying on the said promise, the respondent had acted to its disadvantage. It is stated that in the suit Bajranglal Kedia appeared through the same advocate on record who is also representing the petitioners. It has been contended that Shri Kedia is concealing himself behind the corporate veil of the petitioner and thus this writ application should be dismissed.

7. Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, submitted that the respondents in law are bound to supply electrical energy to the petitioner and in support of the aforementioned contention reliance has been placed on John Earnest Edward & Anr. vs. Rai Jogendra Chandra Ghosh Bahadur reported in AIR 1935 Cal 298; Souriyar Luka vs. Kerala State Electricity Board reported in AIR 1959 Ker 199; N.T.C. Ltd. vs. M.P. Electricity Board, reported in AIR 1980 MP 32 and The C.E.S. C. vs. Arun Kumar Dhar reported in 1978 CHN 159.

8. The learned Counsel has further drawn my attention to the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the respondent nos. 7 to 11 wherein it has been alleged:

"Since the property was vacant but an electrical meter and accessories thereof were lying in a piece of land of the said property, I, represented bef