Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Agrawal, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition and Mr. Binay Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Board. 2. Though this matter has come up for admission for the first time and Mr. Singh has not got an opportunity to seek instructions in the matter, having regard to the nature of controversy I proceed to dispose of this case at this stage. 3. According to the petitioners, he purchased an old house from one Ragni Sinha and others under a registered sale deed, dated 19.5.2001. He repaired and remodelled the house and made provision for a few shops in a portion of the building. He made an application for a commercial electrical connection but the request was declined by the Assistant Electrical Engineer by his letter, dated 11.7.2002 (annexure-1). From this letter, it appears that the house in question had earlier a domestic line in the name of one Radhakant Sahay which was disconnected for non payment of dues amounting to Rs.55249.95. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, therefore. took the stand that any new connection will be given to the petitioners only on payment of the earlier dues. 4. The stand taken by the Asstt. Electrical Engineer is plainly contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court. The Board is entitled to recover its dues from the person(s) against whom the dues stand but the Board cannot refuse to give a fresh connection to a transferee of the premises unless it is shown by cogent materials that the transfer was not made at arms length but it was a fraudulent and collusive transaction intended to frustrate the dues standing against the property. 5. In that view of the matter this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the concerned officials of the Board either to give the connection applied for by the petitioners within a fortnight from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the office of the Electrical Executive Engineer or to pass a reasoned order disclosing the materials on the basis of which the Board may reasonably take the view that the safe of the house in the petitioners favour was not bonafide but it was a sham and collusive transaction. 6. 6. It is made clear that the installation of electric connection in the house will not stand in the way of the Board in realising its dues from Radhakant Sahay by all means available to it in law.