- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. M/s. Corona Cosmetics and Chemicals Limited have filed this writ petition seeking the relief that the seizure made on 10-12-1995 be lifted at once, the respondents be commanded not to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of electricity dues of the erstwhile consumer M/s. Chitrakoot Roller and Flour Mills Pvt. Limited and further that the U. P. State Electricity Board may be commanded to give electric con nection to the petitioner as fresh consumer.
(2.) WHEN the writ petition was filed on 3-1-1996 a detailed interim order was passed. Counter-affidavits were called from the U. P. F. C. as well as the U. P. State Electricity Board, while a counter-affidavit has been filed by Shri Chandra Prakash appearing on behalf of U. P. F. C. no counter-affidavit has been filed by the U. P. State Electricity Board which is represented by Shri Sudhir Agarwal. To be fair to Shri Agarwal it may be stated that he has also agreed for disposal of the writ petition at this stage without a counter- affidavit from the Board because the facts which exist in the writ petition concerning the purchase of the Unit by the petitioner under Section 29 of the U. P. State Financial Corporation Act stands admitted. Short facts are that the petitioner has purchased the Factory known as M/s. Chitrakoot Roller and Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd from U. P. F. C. under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The erstwhile owner i. e. , M/s. Chitrakoot Roller and Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. had liability not only towards U. P. F. C. but towards U. P. State Electricity Board also. Shri Agarwal stated that the Board had already initiated proceedings for realising outstanding arrears. Shri U. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner said that electricity charges which stood payable by the erstwhile owner could not have passed on to the new purchaser under Section 29 of the S. F. C. Act because no such liability can be fastened under Section 29 upon the new purchaser Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board, 1995 (2) SCC 649.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid legal position it cannot be doubted that if there was any outstanding bill against M/s. Chitrakoot Roller and Flour Mills Pvt. Limited the petitioner M/s. Corona Cosmetics and Chemicals Limited cannot be fastened against those bills and no recovery can be made from the petitioner regarding those old bills of the erstwhile owner. Consequently the recovery proceedings if initiated and the seizure of the Unit if made only to recover those arrears from the petitioner which were to be recovered by the State Electricity Board, have to be declared illegal and quashed. In this connection Shri Agarwal stated that the U. P. State Electricity Board has therefore not issued any bill or recovery proceedings in the name of the petitioner M/s. Corona Cosmetics and Chemicals Ltd. Kanpur Dehat. He stated that the recovery proceedings were initiated on the strength of the bills issued in the name of M/s. Chitrakoot Roller and Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. which remain unpaid. This being the admitted position the petitioner cannot be held liable to pay any money in the recovery proceedings against M/s. Chitrakoot Roller and Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Consequently the seizure of the Unit after it has been owned by the petitioner must be quashed.;