JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The petitioner and her husband Mintu Ghosh purchased a property from one Syed Masud Ali by a registered deed of conveyance dated September 23, 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for an electricity connection to the said premises. Initially the WBSEDCL dilly-dallied in the matter, for which a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner. Upon a direction being given by this Court, the WBSEDCL processed the application for new electricity connection of the petitioner and, vide communication dated December 29, 2020, intimated the petitioner that total outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.56,79,649/- was lying unpaid against the connection at the said property. Pending outstanding dues were to be cleared, it was insisted by the WBSEDCL, for a new electricity connection to be given to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Distribution Licensee acted without jurisdiction in insisting upon payment of outstanding dues left by a previous consumer, in the absence of any nexus between the petitioner/purchaser and the erstwhile owner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a co-ordinate bench judgment rendered in M/s. Shree Krishna Paper Mills and Another vs. The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Others, 2009 SCC Online Cal. 1543. In the absence of any nexus between the erstwhile defaulting consumer and the petitioner having been established, the learned Single Judge held that the outstanding dues could not be charged from the purchaser.

4. While defending the demand of the WBSEDCL, learned counsel appearing for the WBSEDCL submits that as per the extant regulations, the Distribution Licensee is well within its powers to insist upon payment of all outstanding dues left by the vendor/erstwhile consumer from the subsequent purchaser of the premises.

5. In support of such contention, learned counsel cites Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Others vs. DVS Steels and Alloys Private Limited and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 210. Learned counsel also places reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed in The Assistant Engineer and Another vs. Sri Nirmal Kumar Mondal and Another, 2010 (2) CLJ (Cal.) 450 and another unreported Division Bench Judgment delivered in MAT 178 of 2010. In the said cases, it is argued, the Courts had held that arrears due in regard to supply of electricity made to the premises can be claimed while giving connection to the subsequent purchaser.

6. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsel and going through the materials-on-record, it is clear from the deed of conveyance, by which the petitioner and her spouse purchased the property, annexed as Annexure P-1 at page 16 of the writ petition, that no encumbrance with regard to default in electricity charges were mentioned within the four-corners of the deed of transfer.

7. Rather, the said document clearly stipulated that the purchasers were indemnified against all estate and encumbrances created by the vendors or any person or persons lawfully or equitably claiming from, under and in trust for them.

8. It is well-settled that, in any event, electricity dues do not form a charge over a property, to be borne by the subsequent purchaser. In Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Others (supra), the Supreme Court had, inter-alia, upheld the vires of Clause 4.3 of the Electricity Supply Code, sub-clauses (g) and (h).

9. Sub-Clause (g) provides that where the property has been legally subdivided, the outstanding dues for the consumption of energy on such premises, if any, shall be divided on pro-rata basis.

10. Sub-Clause (h) stipulates that a new connection to such sub-divided premises shall be given only after the share of outstanding dues attributed to such sub-divided premises is duly paid by the applicant.

11. Licensee shall not refuse connection to an applicant only on the ground that dues on the other portions of such premi