Mr. Justice R.G. Desai, President—This is a complaint made under Section 17(1)(a) read with Section 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

1. The original complaint was filed on 8.12.1989 making only the Respondents 1 and 2 as Parties. Subsequently, on 23.3.1990 the complaint was amended making the Third Respondent also as a party. The facts in brief are as follows:—

The complainant had a factory at No. 8-2B, Hoodi Mahadevapura on White field Road and the Unit was closed in May 1985. The First Respondent namely, the K.E.B. was supplying Electricity to the complainant in accordance with an Agreement dated 18.8.1972 between them. On 26.8.1985 the complainant wrote to the Second Respondent intimating that they have closed their operations and requested them that the minimum charges may be waived until a request was made for re-connection. Again by a letter dated 4.12.1985 the Second Respondent was informed that the factory had been permanently closed and requested for a permanent disconnection and termination of the Agreement entered into with them. The complainant executed a Sale Deed dated 7.9.1987 selling the land and building in which his factory was situated to the Third Respondent The Sale Deed has been registered on 30.9.1987. The First Respondent has raised a Bill dated 14.10.1987 for Rs. 54,484.50 towards electricity charges upto December 1985 and the same has been paid by the complainant on 14.10.1987. The First Respondent has raised another Bill dated 21.9.1987 for Rs. 1,07,250/- which has been paid by the Third Respondent on 18.10.1987 out of the Sale consideration left with them. The grievance of the complainant is that the First Respondent was not right in raising the two Bills after they had received the letters dated 26.8.1985 and 4.12.1985 and prays for a declaration that the two demands made in the two Bills are illegal, unenforceable and void.

2. The Respondents 1 & 2 in their objections admit the receipt of the letters dated 26.8.1985 and 4.12.1985 written by the complainant to the Second Respondent. They however, contend that they did not take action to terminate the contract as the complainant did not persue the matter; that the inpugned bills were raised in September 1987 as some persons on behalf of the complainant approached the Board and asked for the arrears to be paid and the same was paid without any protest. Having paid the bills without protest, the complainant cannot turn around and say that the amount was collected illegally. The Respondents 1 & 2 further contend that according to Clause 16(a) of the Agreement dated 18.8.1972, a Notice for termination of the Agreement is six calendar months ending with the year. As the Notice dated 4.12.1985 does not satisfy this requirement, it is invalid and there is no termination of the Agreement. Since there is no valid termination, the arrears recovered by the Board are valid and authorised. As the payment has been made by the Third Respondent (wrongly stated as Second Respondent in the rejoinder), the Petitioner has no locus standi to question the same. On these grounds the Respondents 1 & 2 pray that the complaint may be dismissed.

3. The contention of the Third Respondent in short is that at the time of sale of the property to them the complainant did not disclose that they had applied for permanent disconnection of the power line and that the sale consideration was arrived at assuming that all facilities including the power connection was available and that they paid the amount to the KEB because in the Sale Deed a clause had been inserted that the arrears of electricity upto 30.9.1987 may be paid and therefore the amount has been paid by the Third Respondent to the First Respondent The valuable rights of the Third Respondent would be affected if any order is made in favour of the complainant. The rights inter se between the Third Respondent and the Complainant cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings.

4. T