In the absence of any nexus between the new owner and the previous owner/occupant, the new owner is not liable for outstanding electricity dues left by the previous owner/occupant.

JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition has been filed against a claim made by the respondent no.1-Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) vide communication dated November 29, 2022 whereby the petitioner no.1-Company was requested to make two payments for the periods up to April, 2010 and from May, 2010 to August, 2012, which were outstanding dues in respect of M/s. Biswanath Ferro Alloys, the petitioner’s vendor, as a condition for giving a new electricity connection to the petitioners.

2. It was also indicated in the said communication that Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) would be applicable as per the prevailing Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (JSERC) Regulations.

3. The Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners argues that the dues were for a period much prior to the purchase of the property by the petitioner no. 1 by direct sale from its vendor.

4. The dues were for the period April, 2010 to August, 2012, whereas the petitioner no.1 purchased the property-in-question by four deeds between the years 2019 and 2020.

5. It is contended that such claim was made despite the petitioners having made the usual payments and complying with all formalities as required under law to get a new electricity connection at the purchased premises, which is situated in the State of Jharkhand, which is one of the States where the DVC operates as a Distribution Licensee.

6. It is contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that electricity is not a charge on the land and, as such, does not go with the transfer of a land. Hence, the petitioners cannot be held liable for outstanding dues left by the vendor of the petitioners.

7. It is next argued that Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for the sake of brevity, “the 2003 Act”) is mandatory and the electricity connection sought by the petitioners cannot be withheld by the DVC on the ground of non-payment of outstanding dues for a much prior period by the vendor.

8. It is next argued, by placing reliance on Clause 5.3.3 of the JSERC Regulations, 2015 (for short, “the 2015 Regulations”), that where the applicant has purchased an existing property, if electricity connection has been disconnected, it shall be the applicant’s duty to verify that the previous owner has paid all dues to the Distribution Licensee and to obtain a “no-dues certificate” from him. In the event such certificate is not obtained, however, the said Clause provides that the new owner “may approach the Distribution Licensee for such a certificate”. It is highlighted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that its language makes the said provision directory inasmuch as the question of approaching the Distribution Licensee is concerned.

9. Clause 5.3.3 further stipulates that the Distribution Licensee shall acknowledge receipt of such request and shall either intimate in writing the dues outstanding on the premises, if any, or issue a “nodues certificate” within one month from the date of receipt of such application. However, it is argued that no sanction has been provided in the said Clause for non-compliance of such provision regarding seeking a no-dues certificate from the Distribution Licensee by the new owner. The provision only stipulates that if the Distribution Licensee does not intimate the outstanding dues or issue such a certificate within time, new connection to the premises shall not be denied on grounds of outstanding dues of the previous consumer. In such an event, the Distribution Licensee shall have to recover its dues from the previous consumer as per provisions of law.

10. Clause 5.3.3, it is submitted, clearly leaves an option for the new owner to approach or not to approach the Distribution Licensee for a no-dues certificate. The provision also leaves an option for the Distribution Licensee to recover its dues from the previous consumer as per provisions of law, which could easily be resorted to in the present case.

11. It is contended that Clause 5.3.3 has to be read in conjunc