The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a bonafide purchaser to a refund of charges for a new electricity connection, subject to the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and circulars.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. (Oral) - Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of cererroi, quashing the impugned order dated 19.09.2015 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bathinder under Section 22(c) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.

2. The petitioner has also sought writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 to refund the amount already deposited by the petitioner under protest.

3. In the month of July 2007, M/s Maa Saraswati Rice Mills applied for a new electricity connection under the LS category. The connection was installed after payment of necessary charges in the month of October, 2011, the aforesaid unit was sold to Guru Nanak Agro Foods. Thevendee continued to avail electricity from the electricity connection in the name of M/s Maa Saraswati Rice Mills. The said electricity connection was never transferred in the name of Guru Nanak Agro Foods. Guru Nanak Agro foods made default in the making payments of electricity bills regularly. As a result of persistent default, the electric connection was disconnected in the month of December, 2013. The aforesaid Rice Mill was auctioned and purchased by the petitioner in auction conducted by the bank along with plant and machinery on as is where is basis. After purchasing the property, the petitioner applied for new electricity connection and deposited the requisite amount of Rs.2,24,710/- as security on 12.08.2014. On 04.09.2014, the respondent nos.2 and 3 issued a demand notice, raising a demand of Rs.8,46,800/- as service charges and extra wire charges. Bifurcation of the aforesaid amount was Rs.3,63,000/- towards service charges and Rs.4,83,800 towards extra wire charges. Since the petitioner was in dire need of electric connection, therefore, the petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs.8,46,800/-under protest on 10.09.2014. Thereafter, electric connection was given in the premises so purchased by the petitioner in the auction. On 24.12.2014, the petitioner laid challenge the aforesaid demand of Rs.8,46,800/- which was depositedunder protest. The challenge was made before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bathinda, by filing an application under Section 22(c) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The Permanent Lok Adalat, vide order dated 19.09.2015 dismissed the said application that is how the present writ petition came to be filed. Notice of motion was issued on 15.02.2016 to respondent nos.2 ad 3 only. In pursuance of the aforesaid notice, respondent nos.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel. Respondent nos.2 and 3 did not file reply and resultantly vide order dated 26.04.2017, their defence was struck off. On 05.02.2020, last opportunity was granted to the parties to address arguments.

4. A perusal of the record would show that there was no representation on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 on 24.07.2019 as well as on 05.02.2020. Since there was no representation on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 earlier and their defence was struck off, therefore, on the insistence of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has proceeded to hear the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submited that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser having purchased the property in question in open auction free from all the incumbrances. Old wires laid at the instance of original ownerare already in existence and the said infrastructure has not been uprooted by respondent nos.2 and 3 at the time of disconnection of the electricity connection. Circular dated 24.08.2011 issued by the Chief Engineer of respondent no.1 would apply in the present case when new power connection is going to be installed for which no recovery of charges as per rules can be insisted upon. The Department itself at the time of making estimate informed the Assistant Electrical Engineer (Administration), Sub Division,