TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remises, electricity supply to the premises had been disconnected. After taking possession of the premises, the first respondent applied for and obtained electricity connection in its own name in the year 1991. Four years later, the appellant served upon the first respondent, a notice dated 16.1.1995 demanding payment of ₹ 2,39,251/- towards arrears of electricity charges due by the previous owner Durga Rice Mills. 3. The first respondent filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and the said suit ended in dismissal on 5.12.1996 which was affirmed by the appellate court on 27.2.1998. Thereafter the appellant served a notice dated 2.3.1998 informing the first respondent that the electricity supply will be disconnected if the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant filed this appeal raising two contentions: (i) The dismissal of the first suit filed by the first respondent for permanent injunction having attained finality, the second suit filed by the first respondent for a declaration that demand and disconnection were invalid, was barred by the principles of res judicata. (ii) The decision in Isha Marbles relied on by the High Court was inapplicable to the facts of the case. The decision of this court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Paramount Polymers (P) Ltd. - (2006) 13 SCC 101, entitles the appellant to claim and receive the electricity dues of the previous owner from the new owner/auction purchaser. Re: Point No. (i) 5. The first suit by the first respondent was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the contractual liability of the previous owner/occupier against a purchaser, who was a third party in so far as the contract between the Electricity Board and the previous occupant and that an auction purchaser who purchases the property after disconnection of the electricity supply, could not be considered as a `consumer' within the meaning of the Electricity Act, 1910 or Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, even though he seeks reconnection in respect of the same premises. This court observed: Electricity is public property. Law, in its majesty, benignly protects public property and behoves everyone to respect public property. Hence, the courts must be zealous in this regard. But, the law, as it stands, is inadequate to enforce the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o by the Board with each consumer does not make the terms and conditions for supply contractual. This Court has also held that though the Electricity Board is not a commercial entity, it is entitled to regulate its tariff in such a way that a reasonable profit is left with it so as to enable it to undertake the activities necessary. If in that process in respect of recovery of dues in respect of a premises to which supply had been made, a condition is inserted for its recovery from a transferee of the undertaking, it cannot ex facie be said to be unauthorized or unreasonable. Of course, still a court may be able to strike it down as being violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. But that is a different mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise in this case especially in view of the fact that the High Court has not considered the question whether Clause 21A of the terms and conditions incorporated is invalid for any reason. The decision in Paramount Polymers was followed in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Excel Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. [2008 (10) SCC 720]. 8. In Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. DVS Steels Alloys Pvt.Ltd. [2009 (1) SCC 210] this court held, while reiterating the principle that the electricity dues did not constitute a charge on the premises, that where the applicable rules requires such payment, the same will be binding on the purchaser. This court held: A transferee of the premises or a subsequent occupant of a premises with whom the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity supplied to the premises should be cleared before electricity supply is restored or a new connection is given to a premises, cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary. In the absence of such a stipulation, an unscrupulous consumer may commit defaults with impunity, and when the electricity supply is disconnected for non-payment, may sell away the property and move on to another property, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible for the distributor to recover the dues. Provisions similar to Clause 4.3(g) and (h) of Electricity Supply Code are necessary to safeguard the interests of the distributor. 9. The position therefore can may be summarized thus : (i) Electricity arrears do not constitute a charge over the property. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
