DIPANKAR DATTA,J. - (1.) The legality and propriety of a judgment and order dated June 19, 2019 of a learned Judge of this Court, practically allowing W.P. 10085(W) of 2019 presented by the writ petitioner (the respondent before us), is questioned in this intra-court writ appeal. Communications dated May 10 and 17, 2019 issued by the appellants were quashed by His Lordship and it was observed that they are obliged to supply electricity to the writ petitioner after effecting connection within four weeks, without the writ petitioner being liable to pay any dues of the previous consumer, M/s. Capricorn Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter Capricorn).
(2.) A question of seminal importance arises for decision in this appeal, i.e., whether the appellants are justified in insisting that as a condition precedent for supplying electricity to it, the writ petitioner is required to clear the outstanding dues of Capricorn inclusive of delayed payment surcharge (hereafter DPS)?
(3.) It would be appropriate at this stage to note the decisions of the Supreme Court cited by the parties on the point as to whether a distribution licensee of electricity is entitled in law to claim liquidation of the dues left behind by a defaulting consumer from an intending consumer while the latter seeks supply of electricity upon taking over the property of the former by participating in proceedings initiated to enforce mortgages and clearance of the dues of its creditors.;