ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In all the cases, as common question of law has been raised and it relates to grant of fresh electrical connection in the respective premises of petitioners, they are heard together and are being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. According to petitioner, Mewalal Swarnkar (W.P.(C) No. 5986/02), he has taken the premises at Katras Bazar, Katras, Dhanbad on 5th July, 1997 on rent/lease from Mr. Pawan Kumar Rajgaria. He approach the respondents for grant of new electrical connection but it has been refused on the ground of outstanding electricity dues against three previous occupier. It is stated that certificate case has been instituted against the erstwhile occupant of the premises. 3. The petitioner, Meena Devi (W.P. (C) No. 6009/02), has also prayed for grant of fresh electrical connection. According to her, the dues is against the erstwhile tenant of a shop in the ground floor of the building in question whereas petitioner has asked for electrical connection in the third floor of the complex known as Laxmi Market. 4. In W.P.(C) No. 6296/02, petitioner, Sarwan Kumar Agrawal has stated that he is the tenant of the landlord, Smt. Manjushree Chatterjee. The application of petitioner has not been entertained for grant of fresh electrical connection on the ground that there is dues against the petitioners landlord, Smt. Manjushree Chatterjee, who was the occupant of the premises. 5. The case of Lalit Kumar Poddar, petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 6621/02 is that he is the tenant within the premises of Rani Sati Mandir having a cement shop. The electrical connection has been refused to him by letter No. 530 dated 18th November, 2002 on the ground of dues against the erstwhile tenant of the shop premises, namely, Kundan Lal Ghosh. 6. The fresh electrical connection in favour of petitioner, Deepak Kumar of W.P.tC) No. 6333/02 stated to have not been given merely on the ground that he is the tenant and the dues are against the landlord. However, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner, Deepak Kumar has not yet submitted the requisite forms and fees for fresh electrical connection. 7. In W.P.(C) No. 6748/02. petitioner, Nirmala Devi claims to be the tenant of Ranjit Maharana and Abhijit Maharana having obtained the premises by sale- deed dated 15th November, 2002 for running an industry. It is alleged that the respondents are not. 7. In W.P.(C) No. 6748/02. petitioner, Nirmala Devi claims to be the tenant of Ranjit Maharana and Abhijit Maharana having obtained the premises by sale- deed dated 15th November, 2002 for running an industry. It is alleged that the respondents are not. accepting the forms for fresh electrical connection on the ground that there is dues against the erstwhile tenant, namely, Chanchal Charchil. 8. Similar matter fell for consideration before the Supreme Court and the High Court from time to time. In the case of Isha Marbles v. B.S.E.B., reported in (1995) 2 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court held that there is no charge over the property. What matters is the contract entered into by the consumer with the Board. The Board cannot seek the enforcement of contractual liability against the third party. 9. In the case of Smt. Rekha Gupta v. B.S.E.B., reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 222, the Patna High Court held that the electrical dues against the consumer is not a charge over the property but a personal liability of the contracting party. The landlord or the bonafide purchaser of the property is not bound to pay the dues of the tenant or erstwhile occupant who vacated the premises. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bijay Kumar Tantia v. J.S.E.B., reported in 2002 (3) JCR 368 (Jhr), held that the liability to pay the electricity consumption charges is upon the "consumer" and not upon or with respect to the "premises". Therefore, if a consumer defaults in the payment of electricity charges, it is the Board which has to be blamed for failing to realize the charges. A bonajlde purchaser from its previous owner or the premises taken on rent by a bonajlde lessee/tenant etc. cannot be compelled to pay the dues of erstwhile consumer if neither of them has had any connection with the erstwhile consumer and the Board has no material before it to either suspect or establish that the new applicant is the reincarnation of the erstwhile consumer. 11. In the facts and circumstances, as the respondents cannot refuse/deny to grant fresh electrical connection on the ground of dues of erstwhile occupant, the order contained in letter No. 530 dated 18th November, 2002 challenged in W.P.(C) No. 6621/02 is set aside. All the cases are remitted to the concerned authority/Assistant Electrical Engineer. 12. 11. In the facts and circumstances, as the respondents cannot refuse/deny to grant fresh electrical connection on the ground of dues of erstwhile occupant, the order contained in letter No. 530 dated 18th November, 2002 challenged in W.P.(C) No. 6621/02 is set aside. All the cases are remitted to the concerned authority/Assistant Electrical Engineer. 12. If one or other petitioner has applied/or apply and deposit the requisite fees and forms and there is no dues against such petitioner, the respondents will not force them to pay the dues of erstwhile occupant but grant them fresh electrical connection within seven days from the date of receipt of requisite fees and forms. However, it will be open to the competent authority/Assistant Electrical Engineer to refuse grant of fresh electrical connection in a case where it is established on the basis of material before it that the erstwhile occupant is actually asking for fresh electrical connection in the name of new consumer. 13. All the writ petitions stand dis posed of, with the aforesaid observations/ directions.