2002 (4) TMI 989 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inaction of CESC in granting a new electric supply line.
2. Liability of the writ petitioner for outstanding dues of the previous owner.
3. Retrospective application of Section 49B of the Electricity (Supply) West Bengal Amendment Act, 1994.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inaction of CESC in Granting a New Electric Supply Line:
Originally, the writ petition was filed alleging inaction of CESC in not granting a separate new electric supply line to the writ petitioner. The petitioner had purchased an industrial unit from the pro forma respondent No. 5 and applied for a new electric supply connection. Despite the application, CESC was not agreeable to supply electric energy unless a sum of Rs. 19,42,149.31, which was outstanding from the previous owner (respondent No. 6), was liquidated by the petitioner.

2. Liability of the Writ Petitioner for Outstanding Dues of the Previous Owner:
The core issue was whether the writ petitioner, as the new owner, could be held liable for the outstanding electricity dues of the previous owner. The petitioner argued that the relationship between the licensee and consumer is personal and the liabilities of the previous owner cannot be transferred to the new owner. The petitioner relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including the Isha Marbles case, which held that an auction purchaser cannot be made liable for the outstanding dues of the erstwhile owner.

3. Retrospective Application of Section 49B of the Electricity (Supply) West Bengal Amendment Act, 1994:
The amendment introduced Section 49B, which allowed the recovery of dues from the new owner or manager of an industrial unit. The main contention was whether this section could be applied retrospectively to make the writ petitioner liable for the dues of the previous owner. The petitioner contended that the amendment could not have retrospective effect and relied on several legal precedents to support this argument.

Judgment Analysis:

Retrospective Application of Section 49B:
The court examined whether Section 49B could be applied retrospectively. The writ petition was filed in 1992, while the amendment came into force on 20th April 1995. The court referred to the Isha Marbles case and other Supreme Court decisions, which established that new liabilities created by statutory provisions generally have prospective operation unless explicitly stated otherwise. The court held that Section 49B could not have retrospective application in this case. Therefore, the writ petitioner could not be compelled to accept a liability that did not exist at the time of making the application for a new connection.

Liability of the Writ Petitioner:
The court concluded that the writ petitioner had no obligation to pay the outstanding dues of the previous owner. The court held that the new statutory provision could not impose a liability on the petitioner that was not present at the time of the transaction. The court emphasized that an owner purchases a property after considering existing liabilities, and a new liability created by legislation cannot be applied retrospectively.

Granting of New Electric Supply Line:
The court directed that the electric line, already provided to the petitioner pursuant to an interim order, should be regularized as a new connection in the name of the writ petitioner. The court also addressed the issue of payments made during the interim period. It was directed that the amounts paid should be adjusted accordingly, and any surplus should be handled as per the decision of the adjudicator regarding the allegations of pilferage of electric energy.

Final Disposition:
The writ petition and connected applications were disposed of with no order as to costs. The court's decision ensured that the writ petitioner received a new electric connection without being held liable for the previous owner's outstanding dues, respecting the principles of non-retrospective application of new statutory liabilities.