ORDER
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. The question that falls for consideration is whether occupier of a builsing is obliged to clear arrears of electricity charges due from the previous occupier in order to get electric connection to his premises.
2. The building in question is situated in 18 cents 500 sq. links of land in survey No. 41 I/I A, 28/11B etc. of Mavelikkara Village, Proverty originally belonged to one S.S. Unni who borrowed loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation for setting up an industry under the name and style ‘Priya Cattle Feed’. In order to secure the loan he created an equitable mortgage of the property by deposit of title deed. Loan was not repaid and K.F.C. took possession of the property and sold in a public auction.
3. Petitioner purchased the said property in public auction for an amount of Rs. 3,38,000/-. By the time electric connection was already disconnected by the Board for non-payment of electricity charges. Petitioner wanted to set up as S.S.I. unit under the name and style “M/s. Arjun Associations” in the said property. He applied for electric connection. Ext. P 3 is an application to that effect. Application was rejected by the Board stating that electric connection would be given to petitioner only if he clears the arrears of the previous consumer Nos. 6556 and 6359. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and has approached this Court.
4. The main contention raised by counsel for petitioner is that since petitioner being an auction purchaser and owner of the property, Board has no legal right to insist payment of the arrears due from previous occupants. It is his further case, agreements entered into by the Board with the previous consumers under provisions of Conditions of Supply of Eletrical Energy are not binding on him. If at all there is any arrears Board can recover arrears from those consumers rather than from the petitioner.
5. In order to establish his case he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board, (1995) 2 SCC 648. It was contended in an identical situation Supreme Court has took the view that Electricity Board has no egal right to collect the amount from auction purchaser since there was no charge over the property. It was also pointed out by petitioner that the Supreme Court has categorically held, the Board cannot seek the enforcement of contractual liability against the third party.
6. Counsel for the Board submitted that Supreme Court decision is inapplicable to the facts of this case. According to the counsel, petitioner is bound by the provisions of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy and consequently Board has got the legal right to receiver the amount the petitioner if he intends to get connection to the premises. He also submitted that the Board can later proceed against the previous consumer and if the amount is recovered it would be adjusted towards dues of the petitioner or effect refund.
7. Regulations relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy was issued by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 79(j) of the Electricity Supply Act. It lays down elaborate procedure “for applying for electricity connection. In this connection it is profitable to refer to Regulation 15(e) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, which is extracted below :
“Reconnection or new connection shall not be given into any premises where there are arrears on any account due to the Board pending payment, unless the arrears including penalty, if any, are cleared in advance. If the new owner/occupier/ allottee remits the amount due from the previous consumer, the Board shall provide reconnection or a new connection depending an whether the service remains disconnected/dismantled, as the case may be. The amount so remitted will be adjusted against the dues from the previous consumer. If the Board gets the full dues from the previous consumer through R.R. action or other legal proceedings the amount remitted by the new owner/occupier to whom connection has been effected shall be refunded. But the amount already remitted by him/her shall not bear any interest.”
It is evident from the above mentioned provision that where the occupant desires reconnection he has to remit the entire arrears of current charges and the dues in respect of the connection already given to the premises. After payment of the entire amount the Bard can give reconnection to a new consumer. It is also open to the Board to recover the amount through revenue recovery proceedings from the previous consumers, but on recovery of the said amount it should be refunded to the new consumer. Such a prevision is not there in the Bihar State Electricity Act. While dealing with the Bihar Electrcity Board case Supreme Court held as follows :
“Electricity is public property. Law, in its majesty, benmgly protects public property and behaves everyone to respect public property. Hence the Courts must be zealous in this regard. But, the law, as it stands, is inadequate to enforce the liability of the previous contracting party against the auction purchaser who is a third party and is in no way connected with the previous owner/occupier. It may not be correct to state, if we hold as we have done above, it would permit dishonest consumers transferring their units from one hand to another, from lime to time, infmitum without the payment of the dues to the extent of” lakhs and lakhs of rupees and each one of them can’ easily say that he is not liable for the liability of the predecessor in interest. He douct, dishonest consumers cannot be allowed to play truant with the public property but inadequacy of the law can hardly be a substitute for ever zealousness.”
It is evident from the above mentioned principle laid down by the Supreme court that if there is a law to recover the amount from the consumer the Electricity Board is bound to do so since electricity is a public properly. In the instant case there are specific provisions in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Emergy to insist that if reconnection is required for anybody he has to clear the arrears and that he would be recouped by the Board on recovery of the amount from the previous consumers. Under the said provisions the Board insisted that the petitioner should pay the entire arrears of electricity if he requires connection to the premises in question. I am of the view Supreme Court decision cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case, therefore do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Electricity Board.
Original petition therefore lacks merits and the same is dismissed.