The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory nature of the General Conditions of Supply, which imposes an obligation on the new owner to pay the outstanding electricity dues of the previous owner for the resumption or continuation of electricity supply, irrespective of the new owner's awareness of the dues.

MARKANDEYA KATJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal has been filed against the impugned common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9. 11. 2005 by which six writ petitions were disposed of.

( 2 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 3 ) THE facts in detail have been set out in the detailed judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.

( 4 ) THE short question in these appeals is that if there are electricity dues against the owner of a premises who transfers the premises to a new owner, can the new owner be compelled to pay the electricity dues of the previous owner, and can the electricity department / company refuse to supply electricity to the premises for such non-payment.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant strongly relied on the Supreme Court decision in Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board, (1995) 2 SCC 648. We have carefully perused the said decision. In that decision the facts were that the previous owner of the premises in question had mortgaged/hypothecated the premises to secure a loan from the State Financial Corporation. Since the loan was not repaid the property was auction sold under Section 29 of the State Financial corporations Act. The auction purchaser applied for reconnecting of the electric supply to the premises which had been disconnected for non-payment of dues by the previous owner. The question arose whether the auction purchaser had to pay the electricity dues of the previous owner to get restoration of the electric connection. The Supreme Court held that the Electricity Board had no charge over the property, and the Board could not seek enforcement of the contractual liability against a third party (the State Financial Corporation ).

( 6 ) THE view taken in Isha Marbles (supra) was repeated by the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. v. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd. , II (2004) SLT 814= (2004) 3 SCC 587.

( 7 ) HOWEVER, the decision in Isha Marbles case (supra) case was distinguished by the Kerala High Court in A. Ramachandran v. KSEB, AIR 2001 Kerala 51 and seena B. Kumar v. Assistant Executive Engineer, AIR 2004 Kerala 68, in which it was held that under Section 79 (j) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the Kerala electricity Board had framed Regulation 15 (d) which provided that all dues to the board from a consumer shall be charged on the assets of the consumer and hence can be realized as arrears of land revenue. The Division Bench of the Kerala High court held that Regulation 15 (d) is statutory in nature and it will supersede any contract between the parties.

( 8 ) THE petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 3532/2003=124 (2005) DLT 688, Ms. Madhu Garg v. North Delhi Power Ltd. had purchased the property bearing No. 10 Jamna Road, Civil Lines, Delhi-110 054. The earlier owner/occupant had not paid his electricity dues due to which the electric connection was disconnected. After taking possession, the petitioner received several electricity bills from the respondents that were issued in the name of Jathedar Richpal who was the tenant of the earlier owner. These bills included arrears of more than Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lacs only) that pertained to the period much prior to the purchase of the property. The petitioner applied to the respondent for grant of fresh connection and offered to pay the electricity charges for the existing connection that was in the name of the tenant, but the respondent insisted that the petitioner should first clear the arrears of electricity dues as a pre-condition for grant of electricity connection. Hence the writ petition.

( 9 ) COUNTER affidavit was filed in the writ petition. The respondent, who is a licensee had been granted a licence pursuant to the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 (DERA) and the Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2000, to distribute electricity in North and North-West Delhi. As such the respondent was obliged by the relevant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document