JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The petitioner M/s. Anupriya Agro Industry is a sole proprietorship firm having one Bishnu Pada Das as its proprietor.

2. When the writ petitioner sought for an electricity connection for industrial purpose to open a unit on Plot No. 3224, Khatian No. 5115, P.S. Raghunathganj, District- Murshidabad, the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) intimated its inability to give such connection vide letter dated 16, 2021 on the ground that there were outstanding dues (without LPSC), totalling Rs. 1,47,809/- being Rs. 54,418/- for Consumer ID No. 300438006 and Rs. 93,391/- for Consumer ID No : 300239058, on account of non-payment of energy bills.

3. By placing reliance on Clause 13.9 of Regulation 46/WBERC dated May 31, 2010, the WBSEDCL insists upon such payment prior to the new connection being given to the petitioner.

4. The present writ petition has been filed challenging such demand of the WBSEDCL.

5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that three plots of land are involved in the present dispute.

6. Plot No. 3223 concerned Late Bahaddur Chandra Das, who had alleged outstanding dues of Rs. 93,391/- in respect of Consumer ID No. 300239058 for operation of a submersible pump on the said plot.

7. In respect of Plot No. 3419, the petitioner had outstanding dues for operation of his submersible pump to the tune about Rs. 54,418/- in respect of Consumer ID No. 300438006.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner had paid the outstanding amount of Rs. 54,418/-in respect of Plot No. 3419. The third plot is the Plot No. 3224. It has been submitted by the WBSEDCL that there is a nexus between the petitioner and the outstanding dues left with regard to Plot No. 3223 as well.

9. Hence, the petitioner, it is argued, is liable to clear off the said dues of Rs.93,391/-in respect of Plot No. 3223 prior to getting a new electricity connection at Plot No. 3224.

10. It is contended by the WBSEDCL that, apart from the petitioner being the son of the deceased defaulter, the petitioner has also enjoyed the benefit of such electricity connection for operating the submersible pump of his deceased father.

11. Secondly, it has been submitted that all the three plots-in-question are situated in close vicinity of each other. Allegedly, the electricity connection being given to operate anyone of the submersible pumps would also enure to the benefit of the adjacent owners.

12. The petitioner has contended that there is no nexus between the petitioner and the outstanding dues left (allegedly) by his deceased father. The plots are separate from each other and the petitioner is in no way connected with Plot No. 3223. Moreover, it is contended that the new electricity connection sought at Plot No. 3224 is intended to operate an industrial unit and not a submersible pump. It is further denied that any of the plots benefit from the electricity connection given to the other plots.

13. The relevant consideration for the present purpose is the provision of Clause 13.9 of Regulation 46/WBERC dated May 31, 2010.

14. Clause 13.9 is set out below:

“13.9 For getting new connection for supply of electricity from a licensee an intending consumer shall be required 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 he/she shall also be responsible for payment of outstanding charges calculated in a prorated manner, if it is established that he/she has had a nexus with the previous consumer(s) including the purchaser/the new lessee/the new tenant 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 aforesaid outstanding dues by the previous consumer(s) to the licensee.”

15. Primarily two categories of persons have been burdened with the liability to clear off previous outstanding dues for getting a new connection for