DAVE, J. ( 1 ) AN Agricultural Industrial Unit was established on an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 1990/46 situated at Mehsana. The said agricultural unit failed to discharge their obligations and commitments qua certain financial institutions and also qua the Gujarat Electricity Board. An amount of Rs. 5,18,998-78 was the dues of the Board against the said agricultural industrial unit. The industrial unit was sold out under a duress, was dismantled and was removed from upon the agricultural land. A partnership firm, after obtaining a certificate of clear title, after a due public notice, purchased the said agricultural land. It was later on converted into the non-agricultural land and the necessary No Objection Certificate was obtained for the construction of a commercial complex. Later on the commercial complex has come up with atleast 85 shops therein. The builder Corporation had asked for the electric connection in the above said shops, but the same is denied taking resort to the provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Indian Electricity act, 1910. The question is as to whether the Board can insist for the payment of the dues which were against the agricultural industrial unit, which existed on the agricultural land. The answer to this question necessarily must be given in negative, regard being had to the clear provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Indian electricity Act, 1910. The precise rationale behind the negative answer is the clear concept that the Commercial Complex cannot be said to be a legal representative of the defaulter consumer unit whereat the former may represent the latter in eye of law from whom the payment of the bills for the energy sold to the latter could be sought to be achieved. ( 2 ) THE land in question was the agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 1990/46 situated at Mehsana. An Agricultural Industrial Unit known as M/s. Sarvoday agricultural Iron and Steel Works had come up on the said land. The said unit was provided with the electricity connection by the Gujarat Electricity Board, the respondent No. 1 herein. It appears that the said unit could not pay a substantial amount of the electrical bills anounting to Rs. 5,18,998-78. The electric connection, therefore came to be disconnected, acting under the provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Act of 1990. The said unit was provided with the electricity connection by the Gujarat Electricity Board, the respondent No. 1 herein. It appears that the said unit could not pay a substantial amount of the electrical bills anounting to Rs. 5,18,998-78. The electric connection, therefore came to be disconnected, acting under the provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Act of 1990. The said unit could not fulfil his obligations qua certain financial institutions and therefore, the said unit, excepting the land was disposed of in the recovery proceedings. The land upon which the above said unit existed had become vacant but it was an agricultural land. This had happened because the unit which was established upon the said land was basically an agricultural industrial unit for which no N. A. permission in respect of the land was necessary. The petitioner M/s. Sarvoday Corporation wanted to purchase the above said land with a view to construct a shopping complex over the same. The petitioner-Corporation was vigilant enough to approach Advocate Shri S. M. Patel, stationed at Mehsana with a request for a clear title certificate. A public notice in this respect was issued and admitedly the Respondent No. 1 herein Gujarat Electricity Board had not raised any claim possibly because nothing could be said to be due from the land owner. Later on, a certificate regarding the clear title of the land was given and the land came to be purchased by the petitioner Corporation. The necessary permission for the conversion of the land for the Non-Agricultural purpose was obtained. The plans were got approved and ultimately a commercial complex comprising of 85 shops has come up on the land. The petitioner-Corporation had requested the Gujarat Electricity Board for the electric supply. Any how, this prayer has been turned down on the ground that, no such connection can be given to the petitioner-Corporation unless and until the previous dues against M/s. Sarvoday agricultural Iron and Steel Works are cleared off. This is apparent from the communication dated May 27, 1994. The reliance in this respect is sought to be placed upon a circular letter dated June 17, 1986. ( 3 ) THE contention coming from the learned Counsel Mr. This is apparent from the communication dated May 27, 1994. The reliance in this respect is sought to be placed upon a circular letter dated June 17, 1986. ( 3 ) THE contention coming from the learned Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that, such a compulsion regarding the payment of the dues of the earlier owner cannot be insisted upon, regard being had to the interpretation of the provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Act of 1910. Subsec. (1) of Sec. 24 which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition may be reproduced thus :-"24. Discontinuance of supply of consumer neglecting to pay charge - (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum, other than a charge for energy due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply-line of other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting of and reconnecting the supply are paid, but no longer. " ( 4 ) HEAVY reliance is being placed by the learned Counsel Mr. Tushar Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondents upon the provisions contained in the above said section that the Board may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting of and re-connecting the supply are paid, but no longer. This relevant part, therefore, stands emphasized in the above said text of the relevant part of Sec. 24 of the Act. ( 5 ) THE real question in controversy is, as to whether the petitioner-Corporation who have constructed atleast 85 shops on the above said land can be said to be a legal representative of the earlier unit, so that they can be made liable to pay dues in light of the above said provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Act. The above said provision authorises the Gujarat Electricity Board to cut off the supply after a seven days clear notice, and the discontinuance of the supply can be stretched upto the day on which the dues and other consequential expenses are paid to the board. There is nothing in this provision which would entitle the Board to ask for the dues from the petitioner firm, which dues are necessarily for the electric energy supplied to the earlier agricultural industrial unit. Reading such a right or authority in favour of the Gujarat Electricity Board would be nothing less than to re-write the entire provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Act. The important aspect in the instant case is that, a unit which was existing on the agricultural land has been sold out, has been demolished and has been removed. The agricultural land belonging to a third party on which the said unit was standing came to be purchased by the petitioner, only after obtaining a clear title certificate. Thereafter there has been a conversion qua the use of the land and the land which was an agricultural land came to be converted as the non-agricultural land. The necessary permission in this respect has been obtained by the petitioner-Corporation. They have also obtained the necessary permission for the construction and later on the commercial complex has been constructed. The question is as to whether the petitioner-Corporation can be said to be a representative of the earlier unit from whom the dues of the Board can be insisted upon. Such a view as has been canvassed by the learned Counsel mr. Tushar Mehta for the respondents can be taken only if it is established that the present petitioner would be a representative of the earlier unit in eye of law. The facts demonstrated above go to establish, without any manner of doubt that the petitioner-Corporation cannot, by any stretch of imagination can be said to be a representative of the earlier unit. In view of this position, it is absolutely clear that the provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Act of 1910 cannot be so construed so as ao make the petitioner-Corporation liable for the dues of the Board qua the earlier unit. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel Mr. In view of this position, it is absolutely clear that the provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Act of 1910 cannot be so construed so as ao make the petitioner-Corporation liable for the dues of the Board qua the earlier unit. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel Mr. Tushar Mehta draws my attention to a judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 465 of 1986 decided on February 12, 1986. It appears that the learned single Judge has taken a view, but of course in the facts and circumstances of that case that, the firm which was praying for a connection was required to be paid the dues of the earlier unit. The eloquent facts in the said case were that, one unit was owned by m/s. Sorath Paper Industries, but one M/s. Parag Paper and Packaging Industries were occupying and utilising the same through M/s. Sorath Paper Industries. M/ s. Parag Paper and Packaging Industries had taken the electric connection from the board but had failed to pay up the electric charges. The connection, therefore, came to be severed. Later on, the petitioner therein, a partnership firm had purchased the very same running unit. The Gujarat Electricity Board had insisted for the dues from that firm. No doubt some reference has been made to provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Act of 1910 by the learned single Judge, but the decision appears to be based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in which a view has been taken that the petitioner firm cannot insist for the re-connection unless the dues qua the original unit were clearned off. The facts of the case on hand, being entirely different no assistance can be derived by the learned Counsel mr. Tushar Mehta appearing for the respondent therefrom. The said decision based on the fact, stands distinguished clearly and unerringly. ( 7 ) A correct view in similar facts appears to have been taken by the Bench decision of Kerala High Court in Souriyar Luka v. Kerala State Electricity Board, air 1959 Kerala 199. In similar fact situation it has been pointed out that the real test would be whether the applicant can be said to be a legal representative of the defaulter. In similar fact situation it has been pointed out that the real test would be whether the applicant can be said to be a legal representative of the defaulter. If the applicant cannot be said to be a legal representative of the defaulter, then the payment of the arrears due from the defaulter consumer cannot be insisted on as a condition precedent for the supply of electricity to the premises formerly owned by the defaulting company and purchased by the petitioner in revenue sale. The case on hand stands on a better footing than the above said case which was before the Bench of the Kerala High Court, because in the instant case the premises, namely, the commercial complex for which the connection is sought for cannot be said to be the premises owned by the former unit which can be said to be the defaulting consumer. In National Textile Corporation (M. P.) Ltd. , Bhopal v. M. P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur, AIR 1980 MP 32 , a similar view has been expressed while considering the question regarding the applicability of Sec. 24 of the Act of 1910. Therein certain textile undertakings had failed to pay up the charges for the supply of electricity to the M. P. Electricity Board. Later on the textile units were under the management of the National Textile Corporation. It has been ruled that, the National Textile Corporation Ltd. cannot be made liable for the dues of the pre-appointed day. This principle gets attracted to the facts of the case on hand. ( 8 ) THE situation can be summed up by saying that the resort to the provisions contained under Sec. 24 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 appears possible in law and the insistance of the clearance of the due bills as a condition precedent for the restoration of the supply of electrical energy seems to be justifiable thereunder only and only if the successor could be said to be the legal representative of the defaulter consumer, to whom the bills could have been presented for the purpose of clearance and payment, and the supply to whom could have been discontinued for the default in payment. Any person or association of persons acquiring the shape of a legal persons cannot be dragged into the net of Sec. 24 of the Act on the illusory pretext of he or they being on the spot where energy was made available unless the nexus in form of a legal representative, in eye of law is established. To hold otherwise would amount to the issuance of a permit where the price for the commodity sold, namely, electrical energy can be extracted from a stranger who never steps in the shoes of the buyer who buys and consumes but does not pay. ( 9 ) THUS, it is clear that the respondents herein cannot refuse the supply of the electrical energy to the petitioner in respect of the commercial complex on the ground that the dues in respect of the earlier unit are not cleared off. In other words, the payment of the dues from the earlier defaulter, namely, M/s. Sarvoday Agricultural iron and Steel Works cannot be made a condition precedent for the supply of the electrical connection to the petitioner-Corporation. The petition, therefore, succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the prayer of the petitioner Corporation for supply of fresh connection to the above said commercial complex without insisting for the dues against the earlier defaulter. If the petitioner Corporation fulfils the other necessary qualifications, the necessary electrical connection as prayed for by the petitioner should be granted by the petitioner, eschewing avoidable delay. Rule is made absolute accordingly, but with no order as to costs. .