New owners of properties are liable to pay fixed electricity charges of prior tenants, while charges deemed unlawful cannot be enforced against them.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Mazumdar, J.

Heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing counsel, APDCL for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to APDCL) challenging the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman in Appeal Petition No. 1/2022. The second respondent in the writ petition is M/s H.K. Sagar Realtors LLP while the Brahmaputra TMT Bars Private limited and the State Bank of India are arrayed as proforma respondents.

3. It requires a mention that M/s H.K. Sagar Realtors LLP, the second respondent herein, has also filed a writ petition being WP(C) 1358/2023 arraying the APDCL as the contesting respondent, praying for reliefs which would depend upon the outcome of this petition. Though for the sake of convenience both the writ petitions were heard together, separate orders are proposed to be passed in the both the writ petitions respectively.

Facts involved in this case:

4. M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd. had been sanctioned an electricity connection for 8000 KW of power load by the Government of Assam, Power (Electric) Mines & Mineral Department, in the year 2005. Subsequently, an agreement was executed between the then Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) and M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd. on 18.07.2006 for supply of the 8000 K.W of power, stipulating that a metering system of 33 KV/570 and 33 KV/433 was to be installed in the premises of the consumer. A power transformer for 3450 KVA X 3 and 1000 KVA X 1 was also installed in the premises of the consumer for which a separate agreement was also executed.

5. M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as erstwhile consumer) was thereafter drawing power at a rate which exceeded 5000 KVA and further, while the normal supply voltage for 5000 KVA was 132 KV, the erstwhile consumer was drawing electricity at only 33 KV. The ASEB was succeeded by the APDCL and as such, APDCL made a request to the erstwhile consumer to make arrangements for conversion of his supply voltage from 33KV to 132 KV.

6. The consumer defaulted in the monthly payment of its electricity charges on account of which electricity connection to the premises was temporarily disconnected on 31.07.2013. On 01.02.2014, the APDCL wrote to the consumer to inform that the electricity connection was liable to be disconnected permanently on account of non-payment of electricity charges. Upon receipt of such letter, the consumer wrote back on 26.03.2014 requesting immediately that the date of permanent disconnection be extended as it was not in a position to pay the dues. Accordingly, after considering the case of the consumer, the authorities at APDCL deferred the “permanent” disconnection by 3 months on the condition that the erstwhile consumer would pay an amount of Rs. 90 lakhs per month during the period in order to pay off its outstanding dues. The same was communicated to the consumer on 11.04.2014.

7. Instead of making the payment, the consumer wrote to the APDCL on 30.06.2014 by enclosing a cheque of Rs. 1 crore with a request that a further period of 1 month be granted to it, with a promise that the bala