Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. ( 2 ) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18-10-2000, whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit the electric dues of previous consumer Subodh Kumar Prasad amounting to Rs. 59,369/- before providing fresh electric connection in the name of the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE petitioners case is that he has taken the premises in question on rent from Smt. Punam Prasad and has applied for electric connection. Under the tenancy agreement it is mentioned that the tenant will get his own electric connection from Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner accordingly applied for electric connection in the tenanted premises bearing plot No. 69, ward No. 2b, situated at Madhukam, Ratu Road, Ranchi. When the respondent-Board did not take any decision the petitioner moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 2656/2000 (R ). The writ application was disposed of on 22-8-2000 with a direction to the respondent No. 2, an officer of the Board, to take a decision on the application of the petitioner for supply of electricity in the premises in question. The respondent accordingly took a decision that before supply of new electric connection a sum of Rs. 59. 369/- has to be deposited by the petitioner. ( 4 ) WHEN the matter was placed on 22-2-2001 this Court, after allowing the petitioner to add the land-lady Smt. Punam Prasad as party-respondent, directed her to disclose the details of Subodh Kumar Prasad in whose name the aforementioned dues stand in respect of consumption of electricity in the premises in question. The respondent No. 4 accordingly filed an affidavit stating, inter alia, that she purchased the land in question in 1987. She further stated that her husband Binod Kumar Prasad and Subodh Kumar Prasad are the own brothers and sons of late Ram Gobind Prasad. After the death of Ram Gobind Prasad, an oral partition has taken place between both the brothers and they have been residing separately. It is stated by the respondent No. 4 that after constructing a building, a portion let out to the petitioner. It is further stated that the respondent No. 4 is not liable to pay the outstanding dues of Sri Subodh Kuroar Prasad. It is stated by the respondent No. 4 that after constructing a building, a portion let out to the petitioner. It is further stated that the respondent No. 4 is not liable to pay the outstanding dues of Sri Subodh Kuroar Prasad. ( 5 ) FROM the affidavit filed by the landlady Smt. Punam Prasad, it is clear that her husband Binod Kumar Prasad and Subodh Kumar Prasad are the own brothers. It has not been denied or disputed by Smt. Punam Prasad that there was no electric connection in the premises in question in the name of Subodh Kumar Prasad. She has simply said that she is not liable to pay any dues standing against the name of Sri Subodh Kumar Prasad in respect of consumption of electricity. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner put heavy reliance on the decision of Isha Marble v. Bihar State Electricity Board (1995) 2 SCC 648 and submitted that the petitioner is not liable to pay the electrical dues in respect of electricity consumed by another person and the petitioner cannot be deprived of supply of electricity on that ground. ( 7 ) THIS question has been considered by me in the case of Smt. Rashmi Agarwal v. B. S. E. B. (CWJC No. 2259/99 (R), disposed of on 24-9-1999 ). While dismissing the writ application this Court held :-"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 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 thing has happened. In one case the Dharmshala was in the ground floor and there was huge amount of electricity dues against it. In the instant case 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 against 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 and 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 premises by one way of 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 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is dismissed. Application dismissed. --- *** --- .