An auction purchaser is liable for existing property dues, including electricity arrears, under an 'as is where is' sale, and claims for time-barred debts are unlawful.

Order :

BIBHU DATTA GURU, J.

1. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking for the following relief:-

“10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling the records from the respondent authorities concerned pertaining to case of the petitioners for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if thinks fit in the facts & circumstances of case.

10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus writ do issue directing the respondent State authorities including the bank authorities, jointly and severally, to return the amount illegally recovered for providing electricity connection with accrued interest at the prevailing bank rate including the respondent No.4- bank who has not disclosed existing charge in its advertisement although in possession of the property for years together before auction and in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus writ do issue directing the respondent State authorities concerned for adopting proactive by approach amending their law/rules/ regulations/code in such manner which has the effect in boosting the economy of the nation rather downgrading it in open world market as India has already been downgraded by the World Bank to almost rank at 134 for making investment in the country.

10.4 Cost of the proceedings.

10.5 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.”

2. (a) The indisputable facts of the case in hand are that earlier Arihant Rock Wool Fibre Pvt. Ltd. Rajnandgaon (for brevity, ‘Arihant’) operates a plant over the land bearing Khasra No.887/1 & 888 total area 2.04 acres situated at village Bakal, Tehsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon. For operating the said plant, Arihant availed loan facility from the respondent No.4/ Bank. However, on account of default committed by Arihant in repaying the loan amount, the respondent No.4 after following the due process of law as enumerated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act, 2002”), took possession of the property of Arihant. Thereafter the auction notice dated 19/04/2012 has been published for sale of the said property. In the said process, the petitioner participated wherein after being declared successful, the petitioner paid the sale consideration of Rs.2,62,18,000/-. Thereafter the bank handed over the sale certificates of the movable and immovable properties of Arihant to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in the sale certificate, it is clearly mentioned that ‘the sale of the schedule property was free from all encumbrances known to the secured creditor’.

(b) Subsequently when the petitioner intended to start production or run the plant, applied for electricity connection with the respondent No.1 and at that time, he came to know that there were outstanding dues on the part of Arihant since 2008 and for which the electricity connection has been permanently disconnected. The petitioner tried his level best to convince the authorities that they are not liable to pay any electricity dues of Arihant. Despite the said fact, the respondent No.1 asked the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.17,67,873/- failing which recovery proceedings will be initiated. To get immediate electricity connection, the petitioner paid the said amount and thereafter running from pillar to post for getting refund of the same. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4/Bank has also denied its liability and even the respondent No.1 is not acceding the req