MUHAMMED RAFI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging revenue recovery steps initiated against him pursuant to Exts. P2 and P3 notices, issued under Ss. 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to the arrears of electricity charges due with respect to electric connection with Consumer No. 7281 provided from the Electrical Section, Padiyothuchal. The connection was provided to M/s. Softex Industries, on 1.11.1995. All the immovable assets of the said industry was taken over by the Kerala Financial Corporation (K.F.C.) on 15.3.2000 in exercise of power vested under S. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, consequent to the default committed by M/s. Softex Industries in repayment of the loan availed. The said industrial unit along with its assets were bid by the petitioner in art auction conducted by the K.F.C., pursuant to a notification published on 5.11.2005. Ext. P1 is the 'Deed of Sale' executed in favour of the petitioner by the K.F.C., on 16.9.2008. Contention of the petitioner is that he is not the consumer who had defaulted payment of the electricity charges and the property which he had purchased from K.F.C. cannot in any way be proceeded against for realising arrears due from the consumer, M/s. Softex Industries. Hence the impugned recovery steps is bad in law and unsustainable, is the contention.

(2.) In the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent it is conceded that the connection in question was provided on 1.11.95. Take over of the industry by K.F.C. is also admitted. It is stated that the requisition for revenue recovery steps was initially issued against the Managing Partner of M/s. Softex Industries. But in the revenue recovery conference held on 15.2.2013 at the District level, it was decided to return the requisition and the authorities of the Board was directed to submit new requisition against the person who bought the land from K.F.C., since the liability towards the K.S.E.B. is pending with the buyer. It is only based on such decision fresh revenue recovery requisition was issued against the petitioner. It is pointed out that by virtue of clause (4) of Ext. P1 Sale Deed the petitioner is at liability, since it is specifically mentioned that the outstanding dues if any on account of usage of electricity and water supply and other statutory liabilities are to be paid by the purchaser. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent had conceded that the connection was given on 1.11.1995 and it was dismantled during October 2002.

(3.) From the rival contentions enumerated above, issue evolves as to whether the property in question can be held liable for the arrears of electricity charges due from its previous owner. Regulation 7 of the K.S.E.B. Terms and Conditions of Supply Act, 2005 provides that, if the purchaser of a premises requires to have a new electric connection, arrears if any with respect to any connection which was already dismantled should be realised from the previous owner/occupier of the premises and not from the purchaser. The above provision indicates that, if the property is transferred after dismantling the connection then the purchaser cannot be held liable for payment of the arrears. Learned Standing Counsel had pointed out Regulation 19(4) of the K.S.E.B. Terms and Conditions of Supply which provides that all the dues to the Board from a consumer shall be first charge on his assets. It further provides that all the dues including interest shall be recovered as arrears of revenue recovery. It is pertinent to note that the said Regulation will create a charge only on the assets of the consumer and not on the property in which the connection was provided. Hence it is evident that the consumer or his assets alone are liable for payment of the dues. Regulation 36(12) of the K.S.E.B. Terms and Conditions of Supply enables the Board to realise arrears due to it in the same manner as if it is arrear of land revenue, through revenue recovery proceedings. But the said provision does not create any charge on the property containing the premises wherein the connection was provided. Hence, prima facie it cannot be accepted that the purchaser of a property which contained a dismantled electric connection can be held liable for payment of the arrears. Of course, the situation would be different if the electric connection existed at the time of purchase as not dismantled, even in a disconnected stage, or in a case where the transfer is made after initiation of recovery steps in fraudulent manner in order to defeat the recovery or the transfer is in any manner possible to be annulled under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.