SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(HP) 48

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
M/s Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. – Appellants
Versus
HPSEBL - Respondent
CWP No.2585 of 2024
Decided on : 04-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Manik Sethi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sunita Sharma, Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the electricity board cannot claim outstanding dues from the auction purchaser if no charge was created on the property, and electricity dues should be attributable to the consumer or premises in accordance with the law.

Headnote:

Electricity Connection - Installation of new electricity connection - Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Performance Standards) Regulations, 2010 - [SARFAESI, Companies Act, 2013, Transfer of Property Act] - The court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 02.03.2024, and directed the board to consider and decide on the installation of a fresh electricity connection without insisting on the deposit of outstanding dues payable by the previous owner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner participated in auction proceedings and obtained a Sale Certificate for a property free from encumbrances. The petitioner applied for a new electricity connection, but the request was rejected, and the petitioner was asked to clear the outstanding dues of the previous owner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the electricity board cannot claim outstanding dues from the auction purchaser as the property was free from encumbrances. The court quashed the order and directed the board to consider the installation of a fresh electricity connection without insisting on the deposit of outstanding dues.

Issues: The main issue was whether the electricity board could demand outstanding dues from the auction purchaser and whether the petitioner was liable to pay the previous owner's electricity dues.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, and the Transfer of Property Act to establish that the electricity board cannot claim outstanding dues from the auction purchaser if no charge was created on the property. The court also emphasized that electricity dues should be attributable to the consumer or premises in accordance with the law.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 02.03.2024, and directed the board to consider and decide on the installation of a fresh electricity connection without insisting on the deposit of outstanding dues payable by the previous owner.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the issuance of communication dated 02.03.2024 (Annexure P­2), whereby prayer made by the petitioner herein for installation of new electricity connection, came to be rejected with the observation that firstly petitioner shall have to clear outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 20,43,837/­ payable by the previous owner i.e. M/s Ankur Drug Private Ltd., petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the following main reliefs:

    “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the communication dated 02.03.2024 (Annexure P­2) as being illegal and without jurisdiction.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent to compensation the petitioner in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Performance Standards) Regulations, 2010, for the delay in attributable to the respondent for the grant of the electricity connection.”

2. Though, vide orders dated 27.03.2024, 02.04.2024 and 03.04.2024 sufficient time was granted to respondents to file reply/instructions, but fact remains that till date neither instructions nor reply has been filed. Learned Senior counsel arguing on behalf of the respondents fairly stated during proceedings of the case that controversy can be decided on the basis of material already available on record.

3. For having bird's eye view, the facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand are that petitioner herein participated in auction proceedings held pursuant to order of auction passed in proceedings initiated against previous owner i.e. M/s Ankur Drug Private Ltd. under Section 13 of the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter to be referred to as “SARFAESI”) on account of non­payment of loan amount and being successful bidder was given Sale Certificate dated 23.11.2023 (Annexure P­1), perusal whereof clearly reveals that after receipt of total sale consideration of Rs. 30,69,85,140/­, the premises of aforesaid company were handed over to the petitioner. Sale Certificate further reveals that pursuant to sale in favour of the petitioner secured asset was made to the petitioner “free from all encumbrances” of the secured creditor. After becoming owner of the property in question, petitioner herein applied for fresh electricity connection, but such prayer of him was not considered, rather it was asked firstly to clear the outstanding dues of the previous owner i.e. M/s Ankur Drug Private Ltd. Though, petitioner herein submitted before the authorities that property in question has been purchased under SARFAESI proceedings and as per Sale Certificate issued in its favour, it has no liability to pay outstanding dues, if any, of the previous owner, but yet vide communication dated 02.03.2024, Assistant Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, HPSEBL, Baddi, disposed of the application filed by the petitioner by making following observations:

    Your referral to application has been examined and it has come to notice that you had applied electricity connection in the premises of M/s Ankur Drug Pvt. Ltd. which is permanently disconnected due to non­payment of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 2047337/­.

As such, you have two options:­

(a) In view the Regulation 10 of the HPERC (Recovery of expenditure for the supply of Electricity) regulation 2012, been amended dated 05.09.2018 by the Hon'ble HPERC, vide HPERC (Recovery of expenditure for the supply of Electricity) (fifth amendment) Regularization 2018, in which the new applicant has the option either to avoid payment of IDC by clearing the dues in respect of old connections on that premises. As such you have option to avoid payment of IDC by clearing the dues in respect of old connections amounting to Rs. 20,47,837/­ alongwith interest 12% per annum till the finalizat

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top