An auction purchaser is not liable for arrears left over by the previous consumer for electricity supply connection, as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.

1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying to quash the proceedings of the second respondent in his Letter No.SE/CEDC/N/HT/AO/R/AS/F 1543/D 852/07 dated 29-05-2007 and consequently direct the respondents to effect supply without insisting the payment of arrears of H.T.SC. 1543 left over by M/s. Dyna Lamps and Glass Ltd.

.2. The petitioner, an industry involved in the manufacture of Wind Energy Generators, with a view to generate energy through wind, started an industry at No.D-17, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi in Thiruvallur District. The petitioner purchased the said immovable property in public auction conducted by M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., in pursuance of public notice, dated 14-02-2005 and a Sale Certificate was issued by the Authorized Officer of the concerned Bank. As per the terms of the Sale Certificate, the sale of the scheduled property was made free from all encumbrances known to the secured creditors. As such, no liability whatsoever has been attached to the property purchased by the petitioner in the public auction sale. In order to achieve the industrial object, the petitioner applied for electricity service connection to the second respondent after furnishing the required documents for the same. But, the second respondent in the impugned proceedings, has stated that there are certain arrears to be paid by the previous consumer and unless the arrears left over by the erstwhile occupier of the premises is cleared, electricity supply cannot be effected.

3. Though the petitioner insisted upon to process the Application for effecting electricity supply, the second respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned proceedings, calling upon the petitioner to clear the arrears to the tune of Rs.17,74,829/- payable by the then Consumer, M/s. Dyna Lamps and Glass and refused to provide electricity service connection. Therefore, challenging the above order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Heard, Mr. K. Seshadri, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Subbiah, learned Counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the petitioner is not a consumer as defined under sub-section (15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and it is in no way liable to pay any arrears left over by the previous consumer and it has to be collected by the second respondent from the previous consumer only by initiating appropriate proceedings against it. Instead, the second respondent has passed the impugned proceedings contrary to the Rules laid down under the Electricity Act, 2003 and under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the second respondent is bound to obligate and provide electricity connection to the petitioner industry, which he has failed to do.

.6. Learned Counsel for the respondents has not disputed the facts with regard to the auction purchase and the petitioner’s status not as a consumer on the date of issuance of Sale Certificate. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the Application as required under the Act has been filed, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed.

7. In support of his contentions, elarned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following:

(i) In the case of Isha Marbles, etc. v. Bihar Electricity Board and another, 1995 (2) SCC 648, the Honourable Supreme Court, in paragraph 63, has held as follows:

“61. What we have discussed above appears to be the law gatherable from the various provisions which we have detailed out above. It is impossible to impose on the purchasers a liability which was not incurred by them.

62. No doubt, from the tabulated statement above set out, the auction purchasers came to purchase the property after disconnection but they cannot be “consumer or occupier” within the meaning of the above provisions till a contract is entered into.

63. We are clearly of the opinion that there is great reason and justice