SPECIAL OFFICER, COMMERCE, NORTH EASTERN ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF ORISSA (NESCO) & ANR. versus M/S RAGHUNATH PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 13 S.C.R. 71 · Decided: 09-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2012] 13 S.C.R. 71 
SPECIAL OFFICER, COMMERCE, NORTH EASTERN 
A 
ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF ORISSA (NESCO) & ANR. 
v. 
M/S RAGHUNATH PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED & 
ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7899 of 2012) 
B 
NOVEMBER 09, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Electricity- Application for power supply connection - By C 
the owner of the premises, who had purchased the property 
of a company in liquidation through auction - The distributing 
licencee demanding arrears of electricity dues outstanding 
against the premises in question as per Regulation 13(10)(b) 
of Electricity Code, 2004 - Writ Petition by the applicant D 
seeking quashing of the demand letter and direction for 
electric supply - Single Judge directing to provide electricity 
connection - Order confirmed by Division Bench of High 
Court - On appeal, held: Orders of the courts below are correct 
- The application was for fresh service connection and not for 
E 
transfer thereof from the name of the erstwhile company -
Therefore Regulation 13(1 O)(b) not applicable and the 
applicant was not liable to pay the arrears - Section 43 of 
Electricity Act casts a duty on the licencee to give power 
supply on an application - The terms and conditions uls. 43 
F 
does not include payment of arrears of dues -
Orissa 
Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of 
Supply) Code, 2004 - Regulations 3, 10 and 13(10)(b) -
Electricity Act, 2004 - s. 43. 
The respondent No. 1 purchased the unit in question 
G 
in an auction sale conducted by Official Liquidator on "as 
Is where is" and "whatever there is" basis. As there was 
no supply of electricity in the unit, he made application 
for power supply. The appellant, instead of supplying 
71 
H 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 
A power, directed respondent No. 1 to pay the arrears of 
electricity dues outstanding against the premises in 
question. 
Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition praying for 
8 quashing of the demand letter. Single Judge of High 
Court allowed the Petition, directing the appellant to 
provide electricity to the unit. Writ Appeal against the 
order of the Single Judge was dismissed by Division 
Bench of the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Sub-clause 10(b) of Regulation 13 of Orissa 
Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution 
(Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 applies to a request 
0 for transfer of service connection but not to a fresh 
connection. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 casts 
a duty on every distributing licencee, in the case on hand, 
the appellant, to supply electricity on the application 
made by the owner or occupier of any premises within 1 
month after receipt of the application. No doubt, it should 
E be only after fulfilling the conditions such as installation 
of machinery, deposit of security etc. The other 
regulations, viz., Regulation Nos. 3 and 10 and various 
Forms would show the words "other dues including the 
security as may be payable" does not mean and were not 
F meant to convey that a new applicant for fresh 
connection shall pay arrears of electricity dues or other 
dues for the same premises "payable by the earlier 
consumer" as stated in Regulation 10. The term "other 
dues" refers to security and other charges payable for a 
G new connection in terms of the conditions of supply but 
not the arrears of electricity dues payable by earlier 
consumer who was in default. [Paras 12, 13, 14 and 15] 
[79-D-E; 80-B-F] 
H 
2. Regulation 13(10)(b) of Sub-clause 109(b) of the 
SPECIAL OFF., COMM., NORTH EASTERN ELEC. COMPANY OF ORISSA 
73 
(NESCO) v. RAGHUNATH PAPER MILLS PVT. LID. 
Electricity Supply Code is not applicable to respondent 
A 
No. 1. Respondent No. 1, after purchase of the said Unit 
in an auction sale conducted by the Official Liquidator on 
"as is where is" and "whatever there is" basis applied for 
a fresh service connection for supply of energy. In other 
words, respondent No. 1 has not applied for transfer of B 
service connection from the name of the erstwhile 
company to its name. [Para 11) [78-H; 79-A-C] 
/sha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr. 
(1995) 2SCC 648: 1995 (1) SCR 847; Ahmedabad C 
Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2004) 
3 SCC 587: 2004 (3) SCR 23; Haryana State Electricity 
Board vs. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauriand Ors. (2010) 9 
sec 145: 2010 (10) SCR 217 - relied on. 
Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.