Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate direction to the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board to give electric connection in the petitioners shop/premises for which petitioners have made applications and fulfilled all the requirements which are necessary for giving electric connection by the Board. 2. In CWJC No. 2259/99(R) the petitioners case is that she purchased a shop from a private trust known as Jokhiram Sarawgi Smriti Nidhi by registered sale deed dated 23.5.96 and paid rent to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation in respect of the said shop premises. It is stated that previously a Dharmshala was there in the said plot which was later on demolished and shops were constructed and the petitioner in order to run her business, purchased one shop constructed in the market. She applied in 1998 for electric connection but electric connection was not given by the Board on the ground that there were some dues against the Dharmshala. 3. A counter affidavit has been fifed in this case stating, inter alia, that there was electric connection in the premises, on the part of which the present shop of the petitionier is standing in the name of Sri Dina Nath Sarawgi. The electric connection was disconnected on 20.11.98 for non-payment of electric dues of Rs. 2,34,810/-. It is stated that previously the Dharmshala was in the ground floor but now the Dharmshala has been shifted in the first floor and the ground floor has been converted into shop premises. 4. In CWJC No. 867/99(R) the petitioners case is that plot no. 2453 stands in the name of petitioners mother in which there are three shop premises. One shop is in possession of Mr. Uma Shankar Singh while another shop is in possession of Dhawali Prasad Chandra. The petitioner started his business in the third shop and applied for electric connection, which was refused by the respondent Board on the ground that there is huge amount dues of electric consumed in the premises in question. 5. In this case also a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated that there are four shops existing in the aforementioned plot. The first shop is in possession of the petitioner, who is running a readymade shop. 5. In this case also a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated that there are four shops existing in the aforementioned plot. The first shop is in possession of the petitioner, who is running a readymade shop. The very shop was previously occupied by Panama Cigarett Company, who vacated the same in the year 1970 and thereafter this shop was used by the owner of this shop for godown purposes and from 1996 it is being used as lady garment shop by the petitioner. The second shop was in occupation of Umashankar Singh in which there is electric connection, which was disconnected for non-payment of dues of Rs. 18,340/-. The shop no. 3 is presently found closed and is under the possession of Sakuntla Devi, mother of the petitioner. There was a commercial connection, vide Consumer No. 2619 in the name of late Bhagwati Prasad Kesri which was disconnected for non-payment of Rs. 62,613.00. The first shop is under the possession of Sri Somnath Mistri, wherein he is running the shop in the name and style of Durta Electric, There was two number of commercial connection in plot no. 2453 and both have been disconnected for nonpayment of dues. The respondents case is that the petitioner is responsible for the payment of outstanding dues as he is getting the income of the property standing in the name of his mother. 6. I have heard Mr. M. S. Mittal and Mr. R. S Mazumdar. learned counsels for the petitioners and Mr. V. P. Singh and Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsels appearing for the Board. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of isha Marble V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board (1995) 2 SCC 648 ) and submitted that the petitioners are not liable to pay the electrical dues and the petitioners cannot be deprived of supply of electricity merely on the ground that some dues or outstanding against other persons. 7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Isha Marble (supra) does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Isha Marble (supra) does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is true that it is the duty and responsibility of the Board to recover the dues from the consumer by taking all possible steps within time and due to negligence of the Board in recovery of the dues the subsequent purchaser will not suffer, but at the same time the consumer against whom huge amount of electrical dues is lying cannot be allowed to set up different persons for making an application for supply of electricity in the same premises without liquidating the earlier dues of electricity supplied in the same premises. In the instant case same thing has happened. In one case the Dharmshala was in the ground floor and there was huge amount of electricity dues against it. In order to avoid payment, the Dharmshala was shifted in the first floor and ground premises was converted into shop premises. Similarly in the second case huge amount of electricity dues are lying againt the premises belonging to the mother of the petitioner. In the same premises the writ petitioner, who is the son, applied for fresh connection and contended that there is no dues of electricity against him. In the facts circumstances of the cases if the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Isha Marble case (supra) is made applicable then no person would like to pay the electrical dues and in order to deprive the Board they can adopt this method of parting with the premise by one way or other. The respondent- Board is, therefore, fully justified in refusing to supply the electricity in the premises on the ground of non-payment of huge amount of dues of electricity supplied in the said premises. 8. There is no merit in these two writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.