O R D E R

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent in Letter No.SE/CEDC/CUD/DFC/AO/REV/AS/D.No.53/2023, dated 26.07.2023 making a demand of Rs.2,76,39,690/- from the petitioners towards electricity consumption charges together with surcharge due from petitioners' vendor-M/s.J.K.Pharmas Limited.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners purchased premises situated in S.Nos.80/212 and 100/1 in S.F.Nos.80/2 and 100/1 in Plot Nos.A-7, A-10, A-11, A-12, A15, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Cuddalore, Panchayankuppam Village, Kudikadu Taluk, Cuddalore District under SARFAESI Proceedings. The Sale Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioners and possession was handed over on 20.07.2021. After taking possession of the property, the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent for temporary electricity service connection through Online Application dated 01.08.2023. The 1st respondent by impugned proceedings directed the petitioners to make a payment of Rs.2,76,39,690/- on the ground that the above said sum was due from previous owner M/s.J.K.Pharmas Limited. Aggrieved by the said demand made by the 1st respondent, the petitioners have come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that they are the purchasers of the subject property under SARFAESI Proceedings, without notice of any default committed by their predecessor-in-interest. Therefore, the 1st respondent is not justified in insisting on payment of the amount due from the previous owner, when the petitioner submitted an application for temporary electricity service connection. The learned counsel further submitted that out of total amount demanded by the 1st respondent, only a sum of Rs.64,27,837/- was due towards the electricity consumption charges and the remaining amount is towards belated payment surcharge. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are ready to pay the actual consumption charges payable by their predecessor- in-interest. However, he submitted that the 1st respondent is not justified in demanding belated payment surcharge from the petitioners. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the order passed by this Court in AURA PACK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others in W.P.No.10100 of 2020, dated

28.06.2023.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents by relying on Clause 17(9)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Code, submits that the 1st respondent is justified in demanding the consumption charges together with surcharge due from the previous owner from the present petitioners, who applied for new connection.

5. While considering the liability of the subsequent purchaser to pay the dues of the previous owner, almost in a similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.10100 of 2020, dated 28.06.2023 by referring to the judgment of the Apex Court passed following order:-

“6. The Apex Court, passed a judgment in the case of K.C.Ninan Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 555 and the relevant portion of the judgment is as follows :

“327. Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, including the lapse of more than two decades since the appeals were filed before this Court and the equities arising in favour of one party or the other, we direct the Electric Utilities to waive the outstanding interest accrued on the principal dues from the date of application for supply of electricity by the auction purchasers.

I. Conclusions

328. The conclusions are summarised below:

a. The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 2003 Act is not absolute, and is subject to the such charges and compliances stipulated by the Electric Utilities as part of the application for supply of electricity;

b. The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer