The judgment establishes the principle that statutory regulations in force at the time of the application for electricity connection govern the release of the connection, and the petitioner was bound to clear the electricity dues based on the regulations.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Mittal, J. - The petitioner submitted an application dated 9.6.2019 for release of electricity connection (non-domestic). A copy of the same is on record as Annexure P-5. The same has been rejected vide communication dated 27.7.2019 on the ground that the land for which electricity connection was sought was earlier owned by respondent No.4-M/s Haryana Concast Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Concast') and the said entity was in arrears of a sum of Rs.1,67,51,154/-. According to the instructions of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Nigam'), an electricity connection cannot be released till the previous dues are cleared. A copy of this communication is on record as Annexure P-6. Aggrieved by this communication, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The un-disputed facts are that Concast went into liquidation and was ordered to be wound up by the High Court vide order dated 28.10.1999. Its assets were taken over by the official liquidator and claims were received from its creditors. The Nigam also submitted its claim for outstanding electricity dues which was accepted. The only secured creditor of Concast was Bank of India. It transferred its security interest in favour of an entity known as Pegasus Assets Re-construction Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Pegasus'), under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act'). Pegasus approached the Company Court for permission to remain outside winding up proceedings. Permission was granted vide order dated 20.3.2009 subject to certain limitations. Appeals were filed against this order, but both of them were dismissed vide judgment dated 15.12.2009. Pegasus approached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition. Leave was granted and the petition was converted into a civil appeal, which was finally decided vide judgment dated 29.12.2015 titled as Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited Vs. Haryana Concast Limited and others, (2016) AIR SC 494. After examining the provisions of various statutes, as well as the case law on the subject, it was held that Company Court had no power to regulate or interfere with the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act taken by a secured creditor standing outside winding up. Before the said judgment was delivered, Pegasus had already put the land and buildings of Concast to auction sale under the SARFAESI Act after its appeal was dismissed on 15.12.2009. The petitioner was the highest bidder having made a bid of Rs.26.50 crores. The auction was challenged by an entity known as S.R. Build Con. Pvt. Ltd. before the Company Court, which conducted an inter se bidding. The petitioner gave a revised bid of Rs.32 crores and the Company Court felt that since, a higher bid had been received, the property was quite valuable and may receive even higher bids, in case a fresh advertisement for auction sale was issued. A fresh advertisement was issued, but no other entity came forward and thus, the Company Court accepted the bid of the petitioner vide order dated 9.7.2010. Sale certificate dated 31.7.2010 was also issued in favour of the petitioner and a copy thereof is on record as Annexure P-3. Appeal against order dated 9.7.2010 filed by one Vinod Rajaliwala was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23.9.2010 as was SLP which was decided alongwith the case of Pegasus (supra).

3. From the aforementioned sequence of events, it emerges that the petitioner is the auction-purchaser of the assets (land and building) of Concast in an auction sale conducted by Pegasus under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, after taking permission from the Company Court. It filed its application dated 9.6.2019 for release of electricity connection and the same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 27.7.2019.

4. It is also relevant to note that meanwhile, the N