1. In all these petitions common question of law is raised and therefore all these petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgement.

2. In all these petitions the respondent licensee Electricity Company had granted electric connections to the respective premises long back. The said electric connections were disconnected by the Respondent Company in exercise of its powers under section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, due to non-payment of electrical energy charges as well as the corresponding Government Electricity Duty and Tax and Tax on sale of electricity.

2.1 The petitioners herein have purchased the concerned premises (wherein the electricity supply was discontinued due to non payment of charges) in auction held in winding up proceedings under the Companies Act,1956 or under Secularization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2.2 When the petitioners approached the respondent electricity company for electric supply at the said premises the respondent insisted that unless and until the outstanding dues of the electric connections at the said premises are paid the respondent company would not be in a position to give electric supply to the petitioners. It is under these circumstances that the present petitions have been preferred.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners raised the following contentions:

3.1 The application of the petitioners for grant of fresh power connection is after enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act of 2003). Accordingly the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 would apply in relation to such application.

3.2 As per section 43 of the Act, 2003, the respondent, which is a distribution licensee within the meaning of section 2(17) of the Act, is obliged to give supply of electricity within one month.

3.3 The GERC has framed Electricity Supply Code under section 50 of the Act, 2003. This code provides for regulations based on which the power is required to be supplied by the Distribution Licensees. These regulations are to be applied uniformly by all the Distribution Licensees in the State of Gujarat.

3.4 There is no provision in the Act or the Regulations permitting the respondent company to recover the dues of the predecessor. On the contrary, the Division Bench of this court has held that the supply code does not permit the respondent company to demand dues of the earlier consumer from the new applicant.

3.5 In the case of Raipur (Rakhial) Commercial Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. (2005)3 GLR 2689, this court has held that the respondent company cannot insist upon the payment of arrears of electricity dues for grant of power supply to the concerned petitioner. This judgement has been upheld by the Division Bench in the case reported in (2006) 3 GLR 1944.

3.6 The petitioners have also relied upon the following decisions:

[1] Isha Marbles Vs Bihar State Electricity Board, reported in 1995 (2) SCC 648.

[2] Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited Vs. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2004(3) SCC 587.

3.7 Thus, the learned Advocates for the petitioners submitted that the respondent Electricity Company cannot insist that unless and until the outstanding dues of the electric connections at the concerned premises prior to the auction purchase are paid, the respondent company would not grant electric supply to the petitioners.

4. Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned Advocate for the respondent Electricity Company has raised the following contentions:

4.1 The petitioners have purchased the concerned premises wherein the electricity supply was discontinued due to non payment of charges, in auction held in winding up proceedings and the auction was held “As is where is and whatever there is” basis and purchasers were given the opportunity to inspect the premises before the auction. Therefore as held by the Apex Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. M/s Paramound Polymers (Pvt) Ltd.,