The liability of an auction purchaser for outstanding electricity dues is determined by the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Supply Code, and the principle that auction purchasers cannot be considered consumers until a contract is entered into.

P.K. DEKA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel, Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (APDCL) and Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.07.2013, passed in WP (C) No.5349/2006, by the learned Single Judge preferred by the respondent APDCL therein the said writ petition.

2. The writ petitioners/respondents purchased Pathini Tea Estate in the district of Karimganj in auction sale while its erstwhile owner of the said tea estate namely, Tea Trading Co. Ltd. was in liquidation. The properties and assets of the said tea estate were put up for auction sale by the Official Liquidator appointed by the Calcutta High Court. The writ petitioners/respondents after filing Company Application in the said pending company petition deposited the entire amount and purchased the entire assets of the said tea estate. The said sale proceeding took place in the year 2006 and prior to that, the electricity supply to the said Pathini Tea Estate was disconnected on 04.12.2000 as the erstwhile owner failed to pay the bills raised against the consumption of electricity. The writ petitioners/respondents after purchasing the said tea estate, sought for restoration of the supply of electricity in the tea estate and vide letter dated 23.09.2006 the APDCL declined to restore the electricity supply unless the outstanding dues were cleared which comes to Rs.61 lakhs. Challenging the said action of the APDCL the writ petition was filed.

3. The learned Single Judge by an interim order dated 08.11.2006, directed the appellant for providing fresh electricity connection to the writ petitioners/respondents without insisting for the arrear payment referred herein above. Thereafter vide the impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2013, allowed the writ petition thereby making the interim order dated 08.11.2006 absolute. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant is the distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 and authorized to operate and maintain a distribution system for supplying electricity to its consumers. As per Section 82 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission was constituted and as per Section 50, read with Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the State of Assam published the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters), Regulation, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Supply Code) with its first amendment vide Gazette Notification dated 08.05.2007. The said Supply Code is in terms of Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003 satisfying the conditions to be followed for recovery of electricity charges, intervals for billing of electricity charges, disconnection of supply of electricity on nonpayment thereof, restoration of supply of electricity etc.

4. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the submissions of the parties to the writ petition, framed two issues for consideration which are as under:-

1. Whether the petitioners who had purchased the assets and properties of the tea estate from another company in liquidation in auction from the Official Liquidator in a winding up proceeding in Court, would be liable to pay the outstanding electricity dues of the earlier owner?

2. Whether the outstanding electricity dues of the tea estate standing in the name of the earlier owner have become barred by limitation?

5. The learned Single Judge while deciding Issue No.1 took note of the various provisions including the Regulation 3.6.4 of the Supply Code. It was also held that the term "consumer" as per Regulation 1.3 (vi) of the Supply Code has given an extended meaning beyond the meaning prescribed in the definition of the said term in the Electricity Act, 2003 and drawing reference of the term "consumer", the learned Single Judge held that the provisions of the Supply Code cannot traverse beyond the Electricity Act, 2003 thereby br