ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to forthwith grant electrical connection in the premises occupied by the petitioner within the Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority. 2. The petitioners case, infer alia, is that the petitioners company was incorporated sometime in June, 1999 in March, 2000 the petitioner was granted a lease of the land in question by the Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority (in short, "RIADA") In Kokar Industrial Area. The lease was granted for a period of 90 years by virtue of registered deed of lease dated 23.3.2000. In May, 2000 the petitioner applied before respondent No. 5, the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric upply Sub-Division, Kokar-II, Ranchi cor a new connection of a 3 phase 11 K.V. line for a contract demand of 200 KVA. Thereafter the petitioner has been continuously requesting and representing the respondents for giving electrical connection but that was denied by the respondents on the ground that an erstwhile occupier of the land namely, M/s. Bharat Agrico is liable to pay the electrical dues for the supply of the electricity in the same premises, unless their dues be cleared by M/s. Bharat Agrico. fresh connection cannot be given to the petitioner. 3. The matter was taken up on 5.7.2000 and this Court passed order directing the Board to file counter-affidavit stating the reasons for not giving electricity in the premises of the petitioner and also disclosed the actions taken against M/s. Bharat Agrico for the recovery of the dues. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents including respondent Nos. 2 to 6, who are now holding the same post under the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The stands of the respondents are that the erstwhile occupier, namely, M/s. Bharat Agrico after getting allotment of the piece of land from RIADA raised construction for carrying out its business. The said erstwhile occupier, namely, M/s. Bharat Agrico was given connection having load of 200 KVA. The agreement with the said Company was determined in July, 1998 and the line was disconnected. The dues existing at the time of disconnection of electricity in the premises was Rs. 2,59,194. It is stated that after adjustment of security still a sum of Rs. 14,07,622.00 is payable by M/s. Bharat Agrico. Unless the dues are paid, fresh connection cannot be given in the premises now occupied by petitioner-Company. The dues existing at the time of disconnection of electricity in the premises was Rs. 2,59,194. It is stated that after adjustment of security still a sum of Rs. 14,07,622.00 is payable by M/s. Bharat Agrico. Unless the dues are paid, fresh connection cannot be given in the premises now occupied by petitioner-Company. So far the steps for recovery of dues is concerned, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the respondents have started process for initiating a Certificate proceeding for realisation of dues from M/s. Bharat Agrico. 5. On perusal of Annexures 5, 6 and 7 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner it appears that M/s. Bharat Agrico borrowed money from State Bank of India and the outstanding dues of Rs. 31.00 lacs was adjusted by sale of building, plant and machinery of M/s. Bharat Agrico in favour of present petitioner. 6. From the pleadings of the parties and the documents annexed therewith the un-disputed facts emerged are that the land was earlier allotted by RIADA to M/s. Bharat Agrico and the later started industry by constructing building and installing plant and machineries out of the loan taken from State Bank of India. The Bank thereafter took steps for recovery of a huge amount lying due against M/s. Bharat Agrico by sale of plant and machineries. The land in question was also resumed by RIADA and the same was leased out to the present petitioner by virtue of registered deed of lease. It is also admitted by the respondents that the line was disconnected in 1998 and thereafter there was no supply of electricity in the premises. The only stand taken by the respondents is that they will recover the dues from M/s. Bharat Agrico by attachment and sale of building and structures constructed by M/s. Bharat Agrico. However, the fact remains that till date no step whatsoever has been taken by the Board for the recovery of the dues from M/s. Bharat Agrico. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Board shall recover the dues by attachment and sale of building alleged to have been constructed by M/s. Bharat Agrico. However, the fact remains that till date no step whatsoever has been taken by the Board for the recovery of the dues from M/s. Bharat Agrico. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Board shall recover the dues by attachment and sale of building alleged to have been constructed by M/s. Bharat Agrico. that cannot and shall not be a ground to refuse/grant of electric connection in the premises in the name of the present petitioner, In my opinion, the instant case is covered by the decision laid down by Supreme Court in Isha Marbels case reported in (1995) 2 SCC 648 . This case is also covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rekha Gupta v. Bihar State Electricity Board and others, reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 222 and Suman Packaging Private Limited v. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board and others, reported in 1995 (1) BLJ 465 . The action of the respondents therefore, for non-supply of the electricity in the premises, is wholly unjustified. This Court takes it as a surprise as to how the authorities of the Board are careless and negligent in the matter of huge recovery of dues of M/s. Bharat Agrico which is evident from the fact that till date no proceeding has been initiated against M/s. Bharat Agrico. It is high time that the Board (Bihar State Electricity Board or the Jharkhand State Electricity Board) should fix the responsibility against such officer for whose negligence such a huge amount could not be recovered from M/s. Bharat Agrico. 7. For all these reasons, this writ application is allowed and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are directed to take final decision for granting supply of electricity in the premises occupied by the present petitioner, if all other formalities and requirements have been complied and fulfilled by the petitioner. The respondents shall take the aforesaid decision within 30 days from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.