M/S Isha Marbles vs Bihar State Electricity Board on 3 February, 1995
In Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board (supra) where the
Supreme Court held that when an auction purchaser seeks supply of
electric energy, he cannot be called upon to clear the past arrears as a
12
condition precedent to supply. There is no charge over the property. What
matters is the contract entered into by the erstwhile consumer with the
third party. Of course, the bona fides of the sale may not be relevant. The
form of requisition relating to the contract is in Annexure VIII prescribed
under clause VI of the Schedule to the Electricity Act. They cannot make
the auction-purchaser liable. It is true that it was the same premises to
which reconnections have to be issued does not appear to be the correct
line of approach as such a situation is brought about by the inaction of the
Electricity Board in not recovering the arrears as and when they fall due or
not providing itself by adequate deposits. In the present cases what the
Corporation sought to recover under Section 29 were the loans advanced
by enforcement of a mortgage. Such sale cannot affect the right of the
Board to recover its dues. The failure of the Board to recover the dues as
and when such dues arose, is a point to be put against it.
Therefore, it is impossible to impose on the purchasers a liability which
was not incurred by them. Though the auction-purchasers came to
purchase the property after disconnection, they cannot be "consumer or
occupier" within the meaning of the above provisions till a contract is
entered into.