(1.) The petitioner prefers this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the demand raised by the respondents for electricity consumption char- yes. The said electricity consumptions charges were to be paid by the predecessor-in-title, hence the petitioner was not ready to make the payment of electricity consumption charges and therefore the petitioner could not get electricity connection and hence the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
(2.) It is averred by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in pursuance of the advertisement, given by the respondent No. 3 - Gujarat State Financial Corporation, for public auction of the premises of M/s. Adinath Plastics, having its factory premises at Ankleswar, the petitioner offered for Rs. 5,11,111/- and it was thought fit, by the Gujarat State Financial Corporation Tender Committee, to allow, the petitioner to purchase the factory premises of M/s. Adinath Plastics. Ankleswar. It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that as the said premises was purchased though public auction, It absolves the petitioner from the liability of making payment of dues towards electric consumption charges which have remained unpaid by the predecessor -in-title. Whatever are the dues of M/s. Adinath Plastics are not required to be paid by the petitioner as it has purchased the premises of M/s. Adinath Plastics through public auction. It is also contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that always- the respondent no.3 Gujarat State Financial Corporation is selling the properties through public auction and no purchasers are paying the dues of electricity char-yes of predecessor-in-title. This is a bald statement averred by the petitioner without support of any affidavit, neither by the petitioner nor by the respondent No. 3 - Gujarat State Financial Corporation. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (M/S) ISHA MARBLES V/S. BIHAR STATE OF ELECTRICITY BOARD ANDANR., REPORTED IN 1995 (2) G.L.H. 134.
(3.) Looking to the aforesaid Judgment, the facts of the case which is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are different than those of the present case which is before this Court.