P.K.Samanta, J. - (1.) Whether the auction purchasers of a premises are liable to make payment of outstanding dues for consumption of electricity supplied to that premises prior to such auction sale is the question, which has come up for consideration in this writ petition.
(2.) The facts which are not in dispute in this case are that the petitioners are owners and occupiers of their respective dwelling units situated at Holding No. 2, Ghoshpara, Badamtala, Bengal Enamel, North 24-Pgs. In a housing complex called "Antarik". The said holding belonged to Hindusthan Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter called as the said Corporation). The said Corporation was a consumer of electricity supplied through high-tension line by the Respondent, CESC Ltd. at the above premises No. 2, Ghoshpara Lane. Such supply of energy through high tension line stood disconnected since the month of March, 1986 for non-payment of monthly energy bills for the period from November, 1985 to February, 1986 amounting to Rs. 1,39,627.29 paise. Such disconnection was effected upon due service of notice under section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to the said Corporation. The said Corporation went into liquidation as a result of which the parcel of land appertaining to the said holding No.2, Ghoshpara Lane was sold out to the writ petitioners and other individuals by dividing the same into small plots of land by the official Liquidator, High Court at Calcutta. The petitioners having thus purchased their respective plots of land in such Court sale constructed their respective dwelling units. They accordingly applied for supply of electricity for their respective domestic uses to the respondent, CESC Ltd. The respondent CESC Ltd. by a letter dated 1st October, 1999 demanded that the petitioners to get supply of electricity in their respective dwelling units must pay off the above arrear dues of said Corporation being the ex-consumer of electricity at the said holding No.2, Ghoshpara Lane. Such demand has been challenged in this writ petitioner.
(3.) Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the CESC Ltd. upon reference to the provisions of section 49B of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 as introduced by West Bengal Act 50 of 1994 contended that because of the said provision the CESC Ltd. is not obliged to supply electricity to the petitioners unless all arrear charges for consumption of electricity in that premises by previous consumer are paid. The said contention would not have detained this Court any further for a decision thereof in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board and another (1995) 2SCC 648 except for the aforesaid provision. The Supreme Court at paragraphs 55 and 56 of the said report held as under: 55. "In all the present cases the supply of electricity to a particular premises, which had the benefit of enjoying electricity, had been disconnected under section 24 of the Electricity Act. The auction purchasers want reconnection. The Board says no; unless and untill the consumption charges in relation to that property which came to be incurred during the ownership of the previous incumbent are cleared of. Is the stand of the Board correct? The High Court, in the main judgment in Suman Packaging (CWJC No. 5358 of 1992) gives the following reasons for answering the question against the Board; 1.Section 24 stipulates discontinuance of supply of electrical energy to the consumer in respect of a sum due from him. We are afraid the High Court had not read section 24 in conjunction with other statutory provisions though they had been noted, namely, section 26 of the supply Act; section 22 of the Electricity Act and clause VI of Schedule to the Electricity Act. They clearly postulate the obligation to supply energy for such premises. At the risk of repetition we hold that the premises had enjoyed the benefit of electricity. The owner of the premises or even the occupier of the premises, as stated under Rule 2(af) of the Indian Electricity Rule, becomes liable to pay the consumption charges together with other dues. In other words, the liability is in respect of the dues of electricity which came to be supplied pursuant to the contract with the former owner. The discharge of such liability will be on such owner of occupier. 56.From the above it is clear that the High Court has chosen to construe section 24 of the Electricity Act correctly. There is no charge over the property. Where that premises comes to be owned or occupied by the auction-purchaser, when such purchaser seeks supply of electric energy he cannot be called upon to clear the past arrears as a condition precedent to supply. What matters is the contract entered into by the erstwhile consumer with the Board. The Board cannot seek the enforcement of contractual liability against the third party. Of course, the bona fides of the sale may not be relevant.";