J. K. BISWAS, J. ( 1 ) THE application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, registered as W. P. No. 13215 (W) of 2000, has been filed by five persons, jointly, as petitioners, against 'calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited' (in short 'cesc') and its two Officers. ( 2 ) PREMISES No. 159, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700 017 is a twelve storeyed buildings. M/s. Onkarmull Goenka, a registered partnership firm, is the owner of said multi-storeyed building. The firm let out different portions of the building to tenants. CESC had been supplying electricity to consumers of the building. The firm was one of the consumers. Sri Onkarmull Goenka, since deceased and Sri Prahalad Rai Goenka, his son, both of whom were partners of the firm, were also consumers of CESC in their individual capacities. As tenants under the firm in the building, all the petitioners used to consume electricity supplied by CESC to the firm and three other consumers through four meters against four consumer numbers. For non payment of outstanding dues amounting Rs. 14,18,671. 40p CESC disconnected supply through the said four meters. Outstanding dues standing in the name of the firm alone was to the tune of Rs. 12,17,198. 60p. The disconnection of supply through the said four meters resulted in non availability of supply of electricity to all the petitioners from CESC. In the circumstances, petitioners individually applied to CESC for getting independent supply of electricity through separate meters to be installed in the building. By letters all dated June 17, 2000 CESC informed the petitioners that unless the outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 13,28,489. 37p were paid and appropriate security deposit was made, CESC would not be in a position to supply electricity to the petitioners. Challenging such decision of CESC the writ petition has been filed. ( 3 ) MR. By letters all dated June 17, 2000 CESC informed the petitioners that unless the outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 13,28,489. 37p were paid and appropriate security deposit was made, CESC would not be in a position to supply electricity to the petitioners. Challenging such decision of CESC the writ petition has been filed. ( 3 ) MR. Kundu, learned advocate appearing for he petitioners has contended that in view of the judgment and order dated September 10, 1999 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 1988 of 1997 and which was later on affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court, CESC was not entitled to demand payment of the outstanding dues as a condition precedent to giving independent and fresh supply connections to the petitioners; that the dues, having fallen outstanding on account of consumption of electricity by late Onkarmull Goenka, both in authorised and unauthorised manner, were not attributable to the consumption of electricity by the petitioners and as such, the petitioners had no liability to pay such dues; that in view of findings recorded in paragraph 5 of said judgment and order dated September 10, 1999 the dues in question were not recoverable from any person excepting the heirs and legal representative of late Onkarmull Goenka; and that even otherwise petitioners could not be called upon to pay the outstanding dues of the landlord firm as a condition precedent to getting independent new supply connection. ( 4 ) MR. Roy learned senior advocate appearing for CESC has submitted that relying on the judgment and order dated September 10, 1999 passed in W. P. No. 1988 of 1997 the petitioners are not entitled to say that they are not liable to pay the outstanding dues of the four disconnected meters actual consumers of electrical energy whereof were admittedly the petitioners; that the petitioners who were not parties to said W. P. No. 1988 of 1997 were not entitled to derive any benefit from the judgment and order dated September 10, 1999 which had been given in the facts and circumstances of that particular case; and that in view of the principles discussed in the decision given by a learned Judge of this Court in the case of Punam Chand Ranga and Ors. v. CESC Limited, reported in 1995 (2) CLJ 168 , CESC was entitled to demand payment of the amount as a condition precedent to giving supply connections to the petitioners. ( 5 ) THE judgment and order dated September 10, 1999 delivered by a learned Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 1988 of 1997 and solely on which petitioners have founded their case, has been reported in 1999 (II) CHN 701 (Prahalad Rai Goenka v. The CESC Ltd. and Ors. ). ( 6 ) IT was held in that case that rights and obligations of the consumers and CESC being dependant on the different contracts entered into by CESC with different consumers, CESC was not lawfully empowered to saddle one consumer for the liability of another consumer. ( 7 ) THE facts of that case were that Onkarmull Goenka being a defaulting consumer of premises No. 159, Rabindra Sarani, CESC disconnected his supply. In the same building his son Prahalad Rai Goenka was another consumer of CESC. After disconnection Onkarmull started consuming electricity from the meter of his son. Detecting the arrangement CESC disconnected supply to Prahalad Rai Goenka and simultaneously demanded payment of outstanding dues payable by his father Onkarmull. Decision of CESC was challenged in the writ petition and on the basis of principle indicated above Prahalad's writ petition was allowed. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of that case the learned Judge held that CESC would be entitled to realise, by filing proper suit, the outstanding dues standing in the name of Onkarmull-either from Onkarmull or if he was not alive, then from his heirs and legal representatives. ( 9 ) PLACING reliance on such observations made by the learned Judge in that case, Mr. Kundu has contended that outstanding dues of the defaulting firm, M/s. Onkarmull Goenka can be realised by CESC, only by a filing a proper suit only against the heirs and legal representatives of late Onkarmull Goenka and from no other person or persons; and in any event, not from the petitioners. ( 10 ) I do not find any merit whatsoever in the contentions. First, as pointed out earlier both late Onkarmull and his son Prahalad, besides being partners of the firm, were individual consumers of CESC. The firm was defaulter for the largest sum. ( 10 ) I do not find any merit whatsoever in the contentions. First, as pointed out earlier both late Onkarmull and his son Prahalad, besides being partners of the firm, were individual consumers of CESC. The firm was defaulter for the largest sum. Admitted position in this case is that petitioners used to consume electricity supplied to them by the landlord firm through its meter. Secondly, petitioners were not parties in the said case. Thirdly, the learned Judge did not hold that outstanding dues of the four disconnected meters including that of the landlord firm would be recoverable only from the heirs and legal representatives of late Onkarmull Goenka and none else. Fourthly, petitioners were not independent consumers of CESC. ( 11 ) THE next question is: as to whether petitioners' applications for independent connections could be regretted by CESC by saying that supply would be given only on clearing the outstanding dues standing against the four disconnected meters through which the petitioners, as tenants of the firm, used to consume electricity supplied by CESC. ( 12 ) MR. Roy has submitted that CESC was within its rights in regretting the applications and demanding payment of the outstanding dues as a condition precedent to giving connections to the petitioners. On this point he has cited the decision reported in 1995 (2) CLJ 168 . ( 13 ) THE decision cited by Mr. Roy fully supports his contention. It has been held in that case that a tenant in occupation of a portion of a premises to which electricity is supplied through the meter standing in the name of the landlord, also comes within the sweep of the definition of 'consumer', when such tenant enjoys the benefits of supply of electrical energy through the meter standing in the name of his landlord; and that consequent on disconnection of supply to such landlord for non payment of dues, the tenant cannot get supply as a new consumer without liquidating the liability of the disconnected meter through which such tenant till before disconnection enjoyed the energy. ( 14 ) THE factual and legal positions being as stated above I hold that CESC did not commit any wrong in demanding payment of the outstanding dues from the petitioners, together with appropriate security deposit, as a condition precedent to giving new connections to the petitioners. ( 14 ) THE factual and legal positions being as stated above I hold that CESC did not commit any wrong in demanding payment of the outstanding dues from the petitioners, together with appropriate security deposit, as a condition precedent to giving new connections to the petitioners. ( 15 ) IT is, however, not the case of the petitioners that they are liable to pay only a part of the total outstanding dues and not the entire amount. The case of the petitioners is that they are not liable to pay any portion of the outstanding dues. The landlord firm is also not a party to the writ petition. It has already been found that there is no legal basis for the petitioners to say that the decision taken by CESC was not a lawfully one. As such, I do not find any necessity to give any direction to CESC to determine the question as to whether petitioners can be made liable for the whole amount or only for different portions thereof. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition; and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. ( 17 ) IT has been submitted by Mr. Kundu that facts and circumstances of nine other writ petitions being W. P. Nos. 298 to 306 (W) of 2001 are identical with W. P. No. 13215 (W) of 2000 wherein the foregoing judgment and order has been passed. He further submits that same question of law is involved in all the writ petitions; and accordingly, the decision on W. P. No. 13215 (W) of 2000 may be directed to govern all the other writ petitions. Mr. Roy appearing for CESC has fully agreed with such submissions made by Mr. Kundu. ( 18 ) IN view of abovenoted submission of parties I direct that the nine writ petitions being W. P. Nos. 298 to 306 (W) of 2001, which have appeared in the list immediately after W. P. No. 13215 (W) of 2000 will also be governed by the foregoing judgment and order which I have passed in W. P. No. 13215 (W) of 2000. 298 to 306 (W) of 2001, which have appeared in the list immediately after W. P. No. 13215 (W) of 2000 will also be governed by the foregoing judgment and order which I have passed in W. P. No. 13215 (W) of 2000. The result is that said nine writ petitions will also stand dismissed without any costs, for the same reasons for which I have dismissed W. P. No. 13215 (W) of 2000. Parties may be supplied with urgent xerox certified copies of this judgment and order on usual undertaking. Petition dismissed