SPRAY ENGINEERING SUGARS LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, PATIALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in the present case centers around a demand raised by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited of an amount of Rs.6,25,356/- outstanding against supply of electricity to Plot No.B-2, Focal Point Derabassi, impugned in this petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed that petitioner No.2 M/s Allychem Organics Private Limited is owner of the industrial plot. Petitioner No.1 i.e. M/s Spray Engineering Sugars Limited, a Public Limited Company took the business premises from petitioner No.2 in 2010 on lease for five years. M/s Allychem Organics Private Limited had purchased the premises from one Tej Pal and Bhushan Kumar. The industrial plot was originally allotted in the name of M/s Core Organics Ltd. by the Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited. M/s Core Organics Ltd. went into liquidation and the premises in question were auctioned by the Official Liquidator to Tej Pal and Bhushan Kumar. The outstanding amount of Rs.6,25,356/- remained due and pending payment against the previous owner i.e. M/s Core Organics Ltd. Petitioner No.1. Therefore, petitioner M/s Spray Engineering Sugars Ltd. has no larger status than of a tenant in the premises and had stepped into the shoes of petitioner No.2 being owner of the premises.

(3.) On taking the premises on lease, the petitioners applied for an electric connection which was denied on the ground that the previous owner had to pay the respondent Corporation an outstanding amount of Rs.6,25,356/-. The amount was paid under protest as an old outstanding of Plot No.B-2, Focal Point Derabassi without prejudice to the rights to question the deposit. The petitioner No.1 wrote a letter dated 28.10.2010 (P- 6) to respondent No.4 that the previous owner's liability cannot be fastened on them and the amount is not recoverable. It was reasoned that neither the first petitioner nor the buyer petitioner No.2 were liable to pay dues incurred by the previous owner. They wrote that both the petitioners were not previously customers of the Corporation nor consumers of electricity from the Corporation and they had made a fresh application for a connection. The Corporation in its letter dated 28.10.2010 (P-5) responded that on deposit of outstanding payment, the connection would be granted. That is how on deposit of the amount, electric connection was granted to the petitioners. It is against these orders dated 08.09.2010 and 28.10.2010 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) that the present writ petition has been filed. In response to the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by H.S. Oberoi, Senior Executive Engineer of the respondent Corporation. It is stated that the demand raised is legal and valid and in adherence to Rule 41.4 (C). The Rule reads as under:-