SUBODHKUMAR MANIKCHAND JAIN Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TAKEN out from final hearing board. Heard finally.

(2.) THE petitioner purchased the property from the erstwhile owner in auction upon whom there were electricity charges, which were unpaid. Therefore, the respondents refused to grant any electricity connection to the petitioner. This Court after hearing both the parties, by order dated 4.5.2009 on a condition of depositing the money, directed to provide electricity connection. The petitioner accordingly deposited the amount in this Court. The amount is still lying and invested, as the respondents were unable to withdraw the same on filing an undertaking on affidavit as ordered on 24.8.2010.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that referring to reply dated 25.6.2007 filed with the petition and specifically Regulation 10.5 as reproduced and Commercial Circular No. 53 dated 7.5.2007 though conceded to the judgment so referred above, insisted that the amount so deposited if petitioner wants to withdraw, it should be subject to undertaking as the issue is pending in Supreme Court, i.e. whether electricity dues constitute a charge on the property so far as the transferor and the transferee of the unit are concerned. We are not inclined to accept even this submission in view of clear judgment given and the issue so reflected above by this Court in Jaisukhlal N. Bhuta (supra). However, we are inclined to keep all the points open so far as this issue is concerned.