Subsequent purchasers of property are liable for electricity dues under the Electricity Act, notwithstanding their previous ownership.

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted, challenging the order of the Writ Court dated 16.04.2018 passed in W.P.(MD)No.7646 of 2018. 2.The respondent has instituted the said Writ proceedings, challenging the demand notice issued by the Assistant Engineer, Distribution / TANGEDCO. On receipt of the demand notice to pay current consumption charges, the respondent has chosen to file the Writ Petition mainly on the ground that he is the subsequent purchaser of the subject property. He has purchased the subject property through Court auction conducted by the Authorized Officer under SARFAESI Act . Therefore, he is not liable to pay consumption charges, which would have no application in respect of his sale of property. Further, the demand is made in respect of the consumption of electricity by erstwhile owner, for which, the respondent cannot hold liable.

3.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants would mainly contend that even the subsequent purchaser of the property is liable to pay consumption charges, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Hanuman Rice Mills , Dhanauri and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 145, wherein at paragraph No.12 (ii), it has been held that “Where the statutory rules or terms and conditions of supply which are statutory in character, authorise the supplier of electricity to demand from the purchaser of a property claiming reconnection or fresh connection of electricity, the arrears due by the previous owner / occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the supplier can recover the arrears from a purchaser”.

4.He would further contend that SARFAESI Act is protecting the rights of the bank and the Act is stating that the debt to bank have priority and other debts / liabilities comes later. SARFAESI Act does not wipe out the debts / liabilities of other Acts. Therefore, the submission that the subsequent Court auction purchaser is not liable to pay consumption charges is incorrect.

5.The issues regarding the liability of the consumer to pay current consumption charges are no more res-integra and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited and another Vs. M/s.Srigdhaa Beverages reported in AIR 2020 SC 2676 held as follows:-

“15.We have gone into the aforesaid judgments as it was urged before us that there is some ambiguity on the aspect of liability of dues of the past owners who had obtained the connection. There have been some differences in facts but, in our view, there is a clear judicial thinking which emerges, which needs to be emphasized:

A.That electricity dues, where they are statutory in character under the Electricity Act and as per the terms & conditions of supply, cannot be waived in view of the provisions of the Act itself more specifically Section 56 of the , 2003 (in pari materia with Section 24 of the , 1910), and cannot partake the character of dues of purely contractual nature.

B.Where, as in cases of the E-auction notice in question, the existence of electricity dues, whether quantified or not, has been specifically mentioned as a liability of the purchaser and the sale is on “AS IS WHERE IS, WHATEVER THERE IS AND WITHOUT RECOURSE BASIS”, there can be no doubt that the liability to pay electricity dues exists on the respondent (purchaser).

C.The debate over connection or reconnection would not exist in cases like the present one where both aspects are covered as per clause 8.4 of the General Terms & Conditions of Supply.”

6.In the case of K.C.Nina