2005 (7) TMI 727 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Electricity Board can demand arrears of electricity dues, including penalties incurred by a previous consumer, from a new owner/occupier/allottee as a precondition for electricity connection under Regulation 15(e) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Demand of Arrears from New Owner/Occupier/Allottee:
The primary question addressed was whether the Electricity Board can demand arrears of electricity dues, including penalties incurred by a previous consumer, from a new owner/occupier/allottee as a precondition for electricity connection under Regulation 15(e) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. The court noted that three Division Benches had upheld the Board's right to demand such arrears, but the correctness of these decisions was doubted, leading to a referral to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

2. Auction Purchase and Electricity Dues:
The petitioner purchased land in a public auction under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and sought a fresh electricity connection. The Board insisted on clearing the arrears of the previous consumer before providing the connection. The petitioner argued that as an auction purchaser, he was not obliged to pay the previous consumer's arrears.

3. Applicability of Regulations 15(d) and 15(e):
The court examined Regulations 15(d) and 15(e) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Regulation 15(d) states that all dues to the Board from a consumer shall be the first charge on the consumer's assets. Regulation 15(e) stipulates that reconnection or new connection shall not be given to any premises with pending arrears unless cleared in advance. The court emphasized that these regulations apply to both reconnection and new connections, and the new owner/occupier/allottee must clear the previous arrears to get a connection.

4. Definition of "Consumer":
The court analyzed the definition of "consumer" under Section 2(c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The petitioner was deemed a prospective consumer until supplied with electrical energy by the Board. The petitioner would become a consumer only after executing the service connection agreement and agreeing to be bound by the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.

5. Public Auction and Encumbrances:
The petitioner argued that the property was purchased free from all encumbrances under Section 60 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. However, the court clarified that the Board was not proceeding against the premises or the petitioner but was enforcing the regulations that mandate clearing arrears before providing a new connection.

6. Statutory Nature of Regulations:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board, which held that the terms and conditions of supply notified by the Board are statutory in character and binding on the consumer. The court reiterated that the regulations are statutory and not purely contractual.

7. Previous Judgments and Legal Precedents:
The court reviewed previous judgments, including Ramachandran v. K.S.E. Board, K.J. Dennis v. Liquidator, and Seena B. Kumar v. Asst. Executive Engineer, which upheld the Board's right to demand arrears from new applicants. The court also distinguished the present case from Souriyar Luka v. K.S.E. Board and Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board, noting that those cases did not involve regulations like Regulation 15(e).

8. Supreme Court Decision in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd.:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd., which held that auction purchasers cannot be held liable for previous owners' arrears in the absence of a specific statutory provision. However, the court noted that Regulation 15(e) provides such a statutory provision in this case.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Board is entitled to insist on the payment of arrears of electricity charges as a precondition for supplying electricity to the same premises to a prospective consumer. The appeal was dismissed, and the earlier decisions upholding the Board's right were affirmed.