BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.

These matters have been referred to a Larger Bench by a Division Bench presided over by the then the Chief Justice by order dated 1st August, 2011 as Their Lordships were of the view that having regard to the provisions contained in Secs. 43 and 45 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("the Act", hereafter), the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Torrent Power v. Shreeji Comm. Co-op. Housing Society, reported in 2006 (3) GLR 1944 requires reconsideration.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of these Letters Patent Appeals are almost identical. However, for the purpose of discussion of the facts, the L.P.A. No. 2240 of 2010 is taken as the lead matter, and the facts may be summed up thus :

2.1. The appellant, Torrent Power Limited, granted electric connection bearing Service No. HT-19 in the name of M/s. New Gujarat Synthetic Mills Co. Limited. The said service was disconnected on 12th September, 1986 due to non-payment of electrical energy charges of Rs. 59,16,493/-, tax on sale of electricity Rs. 2,27,163/- and deferment of electricity duty Rs. 16,52,513/-, making a total of Rs. 77,96,169/-. The outstanding dues including interest/delayed payment charges came to Rs. 4,41,42,422/- as on 31st March, 2007.

2.2. The immovable properties of the said M/s. New Gujarat Synthetic Mills Co. Limited were purchased by one M/s. Star. Associates in a winding up proceedings on "as is where is and whatever there is basis". The properties were conveyed to the present respondent as a nominee of the said purchaser.

2.3. Thereafter, the respondent applied to the appellant-Company for electric connection at the said premises on or about 28th December, 2006. The appellant informed the respondent that there were outstanding dues of Service No. HT-19 which was granted at the said premises, and therefore, unless and until those dues were cleared, the appellant was not in a position to grant re-connection or a new connection at the same premises.

2.4. The respondent, instead of complying with the demand of the appellant, filed a writ-application before this High Court thereby praying for a direction for grant of new connection to• the respondent without insisting on payment of arrears payable by the previous owner.

2.5. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 14th September, 2010, allowed such prayer. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has come up with the present appeal.

3. Mr. Mihir Thakore, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has strenuously contended before us that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the judgment of the Supreme Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. D. V.S. Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2009 (1) SCC 210 : AIR 2009 SC 647 and Dakshin Haryana Bijfi Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. M/s.Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd., reported in JT 2006 (9) SC 349 and other decisions as well as the provisions of the Supply Code made by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (G.E.R.C.) under Sec. 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and other provisions of law. According to Mr. Thakore, his client has every right to impose condition for payment of dues of the earlier owner of the property as a condition for grant of new electric connection to the subsequent purchaser. Mr. Thakore contends that there is no bar in imposing such condition under the law of the land. Mr. Thakore, therefore, prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and for passing a direction upon the respondent to pay all arrears if it intends to get a new electric connection.

4. Mr. Kavina, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, has, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Thakore and has contended that his clients having purchased the property in a winding-up proceedings, his client is not required to pay any amount towards the arrears of electricity of the wound-up Company as unpaid electricity charges