The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Regulation 46/WBERC, which requires an intending consumer to pay all outstanding dues to the licensee in respect of any other service connection held in his/her name located in the area of supply of the same licensee.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has applied for getting a new electricity connection from the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) at his newly-purchased plot of land, including shop premises, located at Mouza - athilagori, Plot No.- 551, J.L. No. - 370, Khatian No. - 4273, Contai Municipality, District- Purba Medinipur, after having purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated august 27, 2021 from one Tapas Neogy.

2. The petitioner paid the entire outstanding dues in respect of electricity charges left by the previous owner in order to obtain a new electricity connection in his own name. Subsequently, the application for new connection was made on September 10, 2021. However, the WBSEDCL sat tight over the matter. Since the petitioner was unable to commence business operations from his newly-purchased premises and facing mounting losses, the petitioner sent an advocate's notice on November 18, 2021 to respondent no.3, the Station Manager, Contai Divisional Office of the WBSEDCL.

3. On December 1, 2021 a reply was given by the respondent no.2, that is, the Divisional Engineer and Station Manager, Contai Customer Care Centre, WBSEDCL, disclosing that there were unpaid dues amounting to Rs. 1,25,229/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Nine only) in the name of Haripada Debnath, the deceased father of the petitioner, in respect of the Consumer ID No. 223003779, for which reason no quotation for providing new electricity connection had been issued.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there does not arise any question of the petitioner being liable to pay any outstanding amount, since all the outstanding dues in respect of the premises, where the new connection is sought, have already been cleared by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the relevant provision in the Regulations framed by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (WBERC) is Regulation No. 46/WBERC, dated May 31, 2020. In Clause 13.9 thereof, an applicant for a new electricity connection has to pay all outstanding dues to the licensee in respect of any other service connection held in his/her name located in the area of supply of the same licensee and also outstanding charges calculated in a prorated manner, if it is established that the intending consumer has/had a nexus with the previous consumer(s) of a property or a portion thereof in respect of which there are outstanding charges and/or who has/had benefited from non-payment of the said outstanding dues by the previous consumer.

6. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner does not come within any of the above categories, as stipulated in Clause 13.9 and, as such, is not liable to pay any further outstanding charges than for the premises in which the connection has been sought.

7. It is argued that merely because the defaulting consumer is the father of the petitioner in the present case, such relation, ipso facto, does not establish any 'nexus' vis-a-vis the electric supply. It is further argued that, contrary to the allegation made in the affidavit-in-opposition, the defaulting meter is neither situated to the opposite of the petitioner's newly-purchased property nor is in the immediate vicinity of such property but is located in a different area in another District and Mouza. Hence, it is contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay any further outstanding dues but is entitled to get a new electricity connection at his new premises from the WBSEDCL.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the WBSEDCL, also relying on Clause 13.9, contends that the ingredients of the said clause have been squarely satisfied in case of the petitioner. The petitioner's deceased father had left outstanding dues in respect of different premises, situated within the 'area of supply' of the distribution licensee and such non-payment had benefited the petitioner.

9. The petitioner also enjoyed the electricity supply from the defau