K. G. Balakrishnan, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (in short "MSEB"). By the impugned Judgment, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant company was rejected by the High Court. The appellant company, M/s. Amit Products (India) Ltd., is a company incorporated in India and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant company obtained Provisional Registration Certificate as a small scale industry from the Director of Companies of Government of Maharashtra. The Director of the Appellant Company Shri Shridhar Natekar filed an application for getting electricity connection. This was rejected by the respondent MSEB. MSEB insisted on clearance of all arrears of electricity charges payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Limited which according to the MSEB was the previous consumer. The appellant company contended that they are not liable to pay the electricity charges payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant company herein is a distinct and separate company which had nothing to do with M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
(3.) It may be noted that previously appellant company filed a Writ Petition namely, W.P. 2090/2002. In the Writ Petition, the appellant company requested for power supply to its factory contending that it is a separate company situated at a separate portion of the property comprised in the same Survey No. and the insistence of the MSEB to pay the arrears of electricity charges to be payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and the refusal to give supply was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The matter was elaborately considered by the High Court of Bombay and by judgment dated 18-12-2003, it was held that the appellant company was seeking connection in respect of the same premises, by the same consumer, under the guise of separate corporate body and it was found that the appellant company was the very same corporate entity which committed default in paying the electricity charges. It was held that the appellant company was not an independent entity having no concern with the previous defaulter.;