SUBHENDU BANERJEE Vs. C E S C LTD

JUDGEMENT

(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: