1. Appellants in both the appeals are challenging Regulation.15(e) of the Regulations relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy as arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires of the powers conferred on the Board under S.79-J of the Electricity Supply Act. On the basis of Regulation.15(e) the Board could deny reconnection or new connection to any premises where there are arrears on any account due to the Board. However, if the new owner/occupier/allottee remits the amount due from the previous consumer, the Board shall provide reconnection or new connection depending on whether the service remains disconnected/ dismantled. The regulation also enables the Board to refund the amount to the new owner or occupier on realisation of the same from the previous consumer through revenue recovery or other legal proceedings.

2. Appellants in these appeals admit that there were arrears of electricity dues from the previous consumers. As far as M.F.A. No. 100 of 2001 is concerned, admittedly an amount of Rs. 86,54,711.41 was due as on 30.6.1999. In the case of M.F.A. No. 187 of 2001, an amount of Rs. 5,08,000/- is said to be due to the Board from the previous consumer. Appellants maintain the stand that they are not bound to clear those arrears and that the Board is legally obliged to provide electric connection to the premises or house where they are the owners in possession. Identical question came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in Ramachandran v. K.S.E.B. (2000 (2) KLT 694) wherein this Court upheld the powers of the Board to lay down Regulation.15(e). The Bench took the view that the Board is not bound to give reconnection or new connection to the premises where there are arrears on any account due to the Board, unless the arrears including penalty are cleared in advance. The court held that if the new owner/ occupier/ allottee remits the amount due from the previous consumer, the Board shall provide reconnection or new connection depending on whether the service remains disconnected/ dismantled, as the case may be.

3. Counsel for the appellant Sri. Chacko George submitted that the Division Bench has not considered all the aspects of the matter when it decided Ramachandran's case (supra). Counsel contended that under clause VI to the Schedule to the Electricity Act where a requisition is made by the owner or occupier of any premises situate within the area of licensee requiring the licensee to supply energy for such premises the Board has a statutory duty to supply energy to the said premises unless the licensee is prevented from doing so, by exceptional circumstances specified therein. Counsel further submitted that S.26 of the Electricity Supply Act vests the Electricity Board with the personality of a licensee with all attendant powers and obligations. Counsel submitted that though by virtue of proviso (1) to S.26 certain provisions in the Electricity Act have been excluded from the application to the Board in its capacity as licensee, Clause VI of the Schedule has not been so excluded. It is also pointed out that the second proviso to S.26 of the Electricity Supply Act subjects application of Clause VI of the Schedule to the Electricity Act to the Board. Counsel also submitted that since distribution mains have been laid by the Board and supply commenced provisions of Clause VI of the Schedule to the Electricity Act would apply.

4. Counsel for the appellant in M.F.A. No. 100 of 2001 submitted that appellant has purchased the land and building together with plant and machinery of the previous consumer, Peerlite Wire Products Limited, on the basis of a sale conducted by the Official Liquidators on orders of the Company Judge and the appellant deposited Rs. 1,40,00,000/- and the sale was confirmed in his name. Counsel submitted that the Board had charge over the property which was purchased by the appellant. That property has been converted into money and the amount paid by the appellant is with the Offic