ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. Petitioner by Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate. Shri Vivek Khedkar, Government Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 3. Shri K. N. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri Anupam Shrivastava, for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5. Petitioner herein a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 feels aggrieved by communication received by them on 22nd June, 2004 and 15-1-2005 vide Annexure P/1 and P/2 directing them to deposit the amounts indicated therein being the arrears recoverable from the previous owner of the establishment before granting fresh electricity connection in the petitioners establishment. Petitioners contend that they have established an industry on the land, which has been leased out to them by the District Industries Centre vide lease deed Annexure P/4. After getting the lease petitioner contends in para 5.3 that it has constructed over the premises and in the same para it is further stated that the land is known as plot No. 17 and petitioner has purchased the construction raised over the property by its earlier lease holder vide Annexure P/5. It is stated that earlier the lease was in favour of M/s Sudarshan Industries and in the agreement Annexure P/5 M/s Sudarshan Industries have agreed to bear the liability including electricity dues. After acquiring the premises and industry it is the case of the petitioner that they have applied for fresh connection over HT lines under 300 KVA. The application was submitted in March, 2004. It was kept pending when petitioner's issued a notice on 19-4-2005 they have received the impugned letters wherein they have been directed to clear all the dues of M/s Sudarshan Industries before seeking fresh electricity connection. Shri Prashant Sharma, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that once petitioner company is incorporated as a new establishment vide certificate of incorporation Annexure P/2 w.e.f. 8th May, 2003, no liability for recovery of the electricity dues from the previous owner of the establishment can be transferred to the petitioners. Petitioner contends that it is a new legal entity which came into existence only on 8th May, 2003 and therefore liability of the previous owner cannot be recovered from the present petitioner. Petitioner contends that it is a new legal entity which came into existence only on 8th May, 2003 and therefore liability of the previous owner cannot be recovered from the present petitioner. That apart inviting my attention to the notice in question Annexure P/1, the service connection mentioned therein for the period, for which the recovery is affected, it was argued by Shri Prashant Sharma that the recovery is for the period of 1989-1995 and now for the aforesaid period no recovery can be effected against the petitioner. It was also argued by Shri Sharma that under the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2004, reliance placed on clause No. 4.17 of the aforesaid provisions by the respondents for making recovery will not apply in the case of the petitioner as on the date when the application was made, the aforesaid statutory provisions was not in force. The provision came into force on 10th June, 2004 and when the petitioner submitted the application the aforesaid provision being not applicable Clause 14.17 it is argued by Shri Prashant Sharma is not applicable. That apart inviting my attention to Clause 11.14 of the Code Shri Sharma argued that the new Code will not apply in the present case, it will not apply to any period prior to coming into force of this Code. Accordingly, placing reliance on the aforesaid provision it was argued by Shri Sharma that on the basis of Clause 4.17 of the aforesaid Code fresh connection cannot be denied to the petitioner. As an alternate argument it was further submitted by Shri Sharma that the petitioner had verified the previous bills of the erstwhile owner and by filing of some of the previous bills with his rejoinder Shri Sharma tried to point out that in the bills the previous dues are not indicated and therefore there being compliance with the provisions of Clause 4.17 inasmuch as petitioner had verified the previous dues by going through the bills, it is stated that as dues are not indicated in the bill, the action of the respondents in refusing connection on this ground is also unsustainable. Refuting the aforesaid, Shri K. N. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel has invited my attention to the persons who have subscribed to form the present company and taking me through the memorandum of association, argued that the present company i.e. M/s Tarun Oil Pvt. Ltd. has been formulated by one Shri Kapil Kumar Mittal s/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Mittal and his wife Bhavna Mittal. Shri Rajendra Kumar Mittal is father and father-in-law of the subscribers and Directors of the petitioner company, he was the sole proprietor of M/s Sudarshan Industries, which owned the establishment before the transfer, inter alia contending that the transfer of the establishment by creating a new company in the name of son and daughter-in-law will not entitle denial of liability by the present company Shri K. N. Gupta argued that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid contentions he invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Products (India) Ltd. Vs. Chief Engineer (O and M) Circle and Another, Thereafter placing reliance on the provisions of Clause 14.17 of the Code Shri K. N. Gupta argued that petitioner is liable to pay the dues of the previous owner as the statutory provision enforced by the aforesaid Code w.e.f. 10th June, 2004 imposes liability on the petitioner to verify from the bills of the previous owner/consumer with regard to outstanding dues. Accordingly, Shri K. N. Gupta submits that respondents have not committed any irregularity or illegality in demanding the dues from the previous consumer to be cleared by the petitioner and seeks for rejection of the prayer made in this petition. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before adverting to the rival contentions certain facts which are relevant for deciding the present dispute are to be indicated. Records indicate that the petitioner Company M/s Tarun Oils Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated under the Companies Act on 8th May, 2003 and according to the Memorandum of Association available on record the subscribers who have subscribed to form the company are only two, namely Shri Kapil Kumar Mittal s/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Mittal and Smt. Bhavna Mittal, wife of Shri Kapil Kumar Mittal. After the company was incorporated by Shri Kapil Kumar Mittal and by Smt. Bhavna Mittal, husband and wife, an application was submitted to the District Industries Centre and the District Industries Centre transferred the lease of Plot No. 17 situated in Industrial Estate Morena consisting of 30,000 sq. ft. in favour of the Company vide lease deed dated 12-1-2004 Annexure P/4. After transfer of lease of the land M/s Sudarshan Industries, a proprietary concern had transferred the shed, building and other structures existing in the aforesaid lease land in favour of the petitioner Company vide another deed Annexure P/5 executed on the same day i.e. 12-1-2004. A perusal of these two documents Annexure P/4 and P/5 indicates that M/s Sudarshan Industries was earlier carrying on the establishment and M/s Sudarshan Industries according to the document Annexure P/5 was a proprietary concern owned by one Shri Rajendra Kumar Mittal, father of Shri Kapil Kumar Mittal and father-in-law of Smt. Bhavna Mittal. Plot No. 17 of Industrial area Morena was initially leased by District to M/s Sudarshan Industries. Document indicates that M/s Sudarshan Industries surrendered the lease deed to District Industries Centre and after surrender of the land on 12-1-2004 land was transferred by the District Industries Centre in favour of the petitioner and on the same day the structures in the said land consisting of building, shed and other materials was transferred by M/s Sudarshan Industries through Shri Rajendra Kumar Mittal in favour of the petitioner establishment. It is therefore clear from the aforesaid narration of facts that earlier the establishment was run by father of Shri Kapil Kumar Mittal. In fact the transaction in question is only conversion of a proprietary concern into an incorporated company and the transfer of the property has taken place between the family consisting of father, son and daughter-in-law. Under similar circumstances, question of denying the electricity to a company by the Electricity Board and insisting upon clearance of arrears of electricity charges by the previous consumer company has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Product (supra) and it has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that mere change of members of the Board of Directors of the Company or by changing the share holding pattern of the Company it cannot be said that there is any change in the functioning of the Company. In such circumstances denial of electricity to the new Company was upheld by the Supreme Court on the premises that in fact the defaulter company and the present company which is seeking a fresh connection are managed by the same persons. In the present case also the defaulter company M/s Sudarshan Industries was managed by the father of Kapil Kumar Mittal and father-in-law of Smt. Bhavna Mittal and the present Company is fully under the control and management of son and daughter-in-law of the defaulting company's owner. That being so it is a case where even though the present company is a separate legal entity created by incorporation but in fact it is created from the assets and liability of the same family concern and it is in the backdrop of these circumstances that the question involved in this petition is to be adjudicated by this Court. Shri Prashant Sharma had argued that the demand made on the basis of Clause 4.17 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Code is unsustainable as the said Code came into force w.e.f. 10th June, 2004 and the application by the petitioner was filed in March, 2004. It was the case of the petitioner that the Code cannot have retrospective effect on applications which were pending for connection prior to coming into force of the Code. The present Code has been formulated under the provisions of section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and it has been enacted for evolving a better mechanism for review of electricity in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Code consists of various provisions and Chapter 4 of the said Code pertains to new power supply and the procedure to be followed for granting electricity connection. The Code consists of various provisions and Chapter 4 of the said Code pertains to new power supply and the procedure to be followed for granting electricity connection. Even though in March, 2004 the said Code was not in existence, but when the process of granting fresh connection to the petitioner's establishment was in progress, the said Code came into force and on 22nd June, 2004 when the impugned action as contained in Annexure P/1 was intimated to the petitioner, the Code was in existence and therefore I am of the considered view that for the purpose of grant of electricity connection in this case the Code would be applicable as the application of the petitioner was not decided and when the Board took it up for decision on 22nd June, 2004 and thereafter on 15-1-2005 and now when the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court to grant them fresh connection, the Code was in operation and therefore merely on the ground that on the date of application the Code was not in existence, application of the aforesaid Code cannot be prohibited. Contention of Shri Sharma to the effect that this Code does not have retrospective effect is misconceived as the process of granting supply of electricity connection consists of various phases, which starts from submission of application, thereafter entire Chapter 4 starting from Clause 4.1 to Clause 4.76 deals with the procedure to be followed for grant of connection and when the application was being processed the Code came into force, respondent Board has a right to process the application in accordance with the aforesaid statutory provisions as contained in the Code. Having held so the effect of Clause 4.17 and Clause 11.14 referred to by the parties becomes relevant. Clause 4.17 reads as under :- If the consumer, in respect of an earlier agreement executed in his name or in the name of a firm or company with which he was associated either as a partner, director or managing director, has any arrears of electricity dues or other dues for the premises where the new connection is applied for and such dues are payable to the licensee, the requisition for supply may not be entertained by the licensee until the dues are paid in full. In case of a person occupying a new property, it will be the obligation of that person to check the bills for the previous months or, in case of disconnected supply, the amount due as per the licensee's records immediately before his occupation and ensure that all outstanding electricity dues as specified in the bills are duly paid up and discharged. The licensee shall be obliged to issue a certificate of the amount outstanding from the connection that was installed or is installed in such premises on request made by such person. The licensee may refuse to supply electricity to the premises through the already existing connection or refuse to give a new connection to the premises till such outstanding dues to the licensee are cleared. A perusal of the aforesaid clause indicates that it consists of two parts. The first part deals with the right of a consumer, who was associated with the earlier defaulting firm or company to seek fresh connection and the second part deals with the obligation of a new consumer to verify and check the bills of previous months before taking over of the establishment. Even though the first part as argued by Shri Sharma may not be applicable, the second part would be applicable. The purpose of incorporating the second part is to caution the purchaser of an establishment or any other concern having electricity connection to verify the effect with regard to electricity dues to be paid by the previous consumer and the method of verification is by checking the bills of the previous months. Petitioner has tried to demonstrate compliance of this part on his part by bringing on record the copies of the bills which he says he has verified and which did not indicate existence of any outstanding amount. As argued by Shri K. N. Gupta, Senior Advocate, these bills are only for one service connection and pertains to service connection No. 35982. However the communication Annexure P/1 indicates that the outstanding dues are mainly for service connections No. 3917, 3920 and 3921. None of the bills submitted by the petitioner relate to any of these three service connection. The bill raised for service connection No. 35982 relates to the dues on the basis of some vigilance check in the establishment of M/s Sudarshan Industries. None of the bills submitted by the petitioner relate to any of these three service connection. The bill raised for service connection No. 35982 relates to the dues on the basis of some vigilance check in the establishment of M/s Sudarshan Industries. It seems that the petitioner company owned by Shri Kapil Kumar Mittal has only produced some bills which were available with his father for the purpose of showing compliance with the second part of Clause 4.17, whereas he has not demonstrated as to how he has verified the dues outstanding against service connection No. 3917, 3920 and 3921. That apart the Directors and Subscribers of the petitioner company being son and daughter-in-law of the previous defaulter establishments proprietor Shri Rajendra Kumar Mittal in normal circumstances they would be aware of the dues outstanding against the company. In the transfer deed Annexure P/5 itself it is indicated that as M/s Sudarshan Industries is facing financial crisis due to which it is transferring its assets and liability to the present company. Under these circumstances it has to be held that the petitioner was aware of the previous dues of the defaulting consumer and even if it was not aware it has failed to verify and check the bills as required under Clause 4.17 of the statutory Code. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case taking note of the over all circumstances as has been indicated hereinabove so also keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Products (supra), I am unable to accept the contentions of the petitioners. this Court cannot direct for grant of any fresh connection and does not see any error in the action of the Board in insisting upon clearance of electricity dues from the previous owner. Lastly the contention of Shri Prashant Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner by referring to Clause 11.14 of the Code indicates that this provision contemplates that the 'General Conditions for Supply of Electrical Energy and Scale of Miscellaneous and General Charges' all its amendments made from time to time by the Board, shall apply in respect of the period prior to coming into force of this Code. Nothing has been brought to my notice in the aforesaid general condition which prohibits the Board from demanding clearance of dues of the previous owner. Nothing has been brought to my notice in the aforesaid general condition which prohibits the Board from demanding clearance of dues of the previous owner. Even if the said provision does not apply once the relationship between the petitioner company and the previous defaulting company M/s Sudarshan Industries is apparent from the face of the record applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Product (supra), it cannot be said that the demand made by the Board and the refusal to grant fresh connection illegally. Accordingly taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground made out for issuing any mandamus to the respondent Board directing for grant of electricity connection to the petitioner's establishment. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere in the matter, petition is dismissed without any order as to cost. Final Result : Dismissed