Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- The petitioner is aggrieved against the decision of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”), by which its request for temporary electricity connection to its site has been declined on the ground that there is an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,08,84,468/- against A/c No.K31LS100001 of M/s Garg Malleables India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “company”).

2. In brief, the company obtained certain credit facilities from the Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the “bank”), which it failed to re-pay, resulting into initiation of proceedings by the bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) on the basis of which mortgaged property of the company was sold by sale deed dated 18.04.2017 in favour of the petitioner and in the said sale deed, the scheduled property was referred to be free from all encumbrances. After obtaining possession, the petitioner applied for a new temporary electricity connection by depositing Rs. 1,625/- against receipt dated 26.04.2017 but the Corporation declined it on 05.05.2017 on the ground that against the earlier connection bearing A/c No.K31LA100001, an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,08,84,468/- is recoverable and referred to Rule 3.3(viii) B of ESIM of Powercom, as per which the said amount has to be first deposited.

3. The petitioner has raised a legal issue as to whether a subsequent auction purchaser is liable to clear the arrears of electricity charges of the previous owner/consumer? In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following decisions:-

1. M/s Isha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Board, 1995(2) SCC 648;

2. M/s. Paramount Polymers Private Ltd. vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others, 2005(3) PLR 796;

3. Paramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab through Financial Commissioner Revenue and others, CWP No.9121 of 2007, decided on 8th April, 2011; and

4. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited vs. Recovery Officer-II, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, and another, 2013(23) R.C.R. (Civil) 267.

4. During the pendency of the present petition, the bank and the company were also impleaded as parties.

5. Learned counsel for the bank has submitted that the petitioner had purchased the property in question on 18.04.2017 in e-auction held on 31.01.2017 for an amount of Rs. 72.73 lacs and possession certificate was issued to them on 18.04.2017 and in the sale certificate, it was categorically mentioned that the sale of the scheduled property was made free from all encumbrances known to the creditor and it is also submitted that the property was sold on “as is where is” and “whatever there is” basis.

6. Learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that the decision rendered in M/s Isha Marbles’s case (supra) is not applicable and is distinguishable as the Supreme Court has held that in the absence of any statutory rules, authorizing demand for the dues of the previous occupant, from the auction purchaser who is seeking supply of electrical energy by way of fresh connection, the new owner/consumer cannot be called upon to clear the pre-sale arrears as a condition precedent for granting fresh connection, whereas in the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/s Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd., 2006(13) SCC 101 and in Haryana State Electricity Board vs. M/s Hanuman Rice Mills Dhanauri and others, [2010(5) Law Herald (SC) 3646 : 2010(5) Law Herald (P&H) 4269 (SC)] ; 2010(9) SCC 145, the Supreme Court considered the M/s Isha Marbles’s case (supra) and distinguished the two factual situations i.e. where statutory rules authorize or do not authorize the supplier to recover from the purchaser of a property and it has been held that where the rules provide for the same, the supplier of electricity can recover the outstanding dues of the previous owner from the