Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. The Kerala Financial Corporation, hereinafter called “the KFC” had taken over the firm, M/s. Sakthi Electrical Industries Private Limited, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 29(1) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Later in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 29(2) of the Act, KFC has executed sale deed No.859 of 2003 of the Sub Registry Office, Vennikulam in favour of the petitioners after inviting tenders and accepting the highest offer made by the petitioners. Ext.P1 is the sale deed executed which contains the following clause. “Electricity dues and other statutory dues if any shall be paid by the purchaser.” 2. Petitioners after purchasing the industrial unit started a new unit under the name and style “M/s. A.M. Cartons”. The Board examined the petitioners’ application and sent reply dated 7.1.2004 informing them that power to the extent of 33 K.W. could be allotted to the petitioners on condition that the petitioners would remit an amount of Rs.83,242/- towards arrears pending recovery from the consumer No.5819 (LT IV) dismantled from the said premises. Petitioners are aggrieved by the condition imposed by the Electricity Board and have approached this court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant them electricity supply to the extent of 33 KW to the premises of M/s. A.M. Cartons and also sought a writ of certiorari to quash condition No.7 imposed by the Board. Learned Single judge allowed the writ petition directing the Board to give electric connection to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been preferred by the Board. 3. A Full Bench of this court in Suraj v. K.S.E. Board (2005 (3) KLT 865) has held that reconnection or new connection need not be given to any premises where there are arrears on any account due to the Board pending payment unless the arrears including penalty, if any, are cleared in advance. The court ordered that if the new owner/occupier/allottee remits the amount due from the previous consumer, the Board shall provide reconnection or new connection depending on whether the service remains disconnected/dismantled, as the case may be. In view of the settled legal position, in our view, learned single judge was not justified in giving direction to the Board to give electric connection to the premises of the petitioners. 4. In view of the settled legal position, in our view, learned single judge was not justified in giving direction to the Board to give electric connection to the premises of the petitioners. 4. The Board has taken steps to recover the amount from the previous Managing Director one Krishna Pillai of Sakthi Electircals Pvt. Limited, the unit which was taken over by the KFC and sold to the petitioners in W.P.C.No.159 of 2005 as per Ext.P1 sale deed. On the requisition made by the Board, Tahsildar initiated revenue recovery proceedings which led wife of Krishna Pillai filing O.P.No.18624 of 1999. Contention was raised that husband had ceased to be director of the Company from 14.1.1991 and the amount sought to be recovered is for the period for September 1992 to June 1998. 5. The Board filed detailed counted affidavit stating that the petitioner’s husband had executed a minimum guarantee agreement on 13.12.1989 and on the basis of that agreement the Board has constructed 400 metres of 11 KV single circuit line and installed one 100 KVA transformer exclusively for providing electric connection to the petitioner’s husband and electric connection was given. Further it was also stated that the capital cost of the work came to Rs.65,802/- and the minimum guarantee revenue was Rs.9,800.03 per annum for ten years. It is pointed out that the petitioner’s husband had not given any intimation regarding the change of Management of the company and if any such intimation was given, the Board would have asked the new owner to execute the Minimum Guarantee Agreement. Further any internal arrangement made by the petitioner for running the factory would not bind the Electricity Board in the absence of any notice regarding change of management or ownership. Reference was made to clause 7 of the agreement which reads as follows: “7. All dues that may become payable by the guarantor under in relation to or by virtue of the agreement by reason or breach or otherwise are recoverable under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force as if they are arrears of public revenue due on land or in such other manner as the Board may deem fit.” We have perused the Minimum Guarantee Agreement dated 13.2.1989. Agreement was executed by Krishna Pillai for a private limited company in the capacity of Managing Director and not in his personal capacity. Agreement was executed by Krishna Pillai for a private limited company in the capacity of Managing Director and not in his personal capacity. There is nothing to show that in the Minimum Guarantee Agreement, Krishna Pillai had given any personal guarantee for honoring the minimum guarantee agreement or he had created any charge over his personal properties. In the absence of any personal guarantee executed by Krishna Pillai, the Board is not justified in proceeding against Krishna Pillai personally. All the same, it is open to the Board to proceed against the assets of the said company since Ext.R4(a) minimum guarantee was executed for and on behalf of the company. Further we also notice when the unit was purchased by the petitioners in W.P.C.No.159 of 2005 there is a specific stipulation that electricity dues and other statutory dues if any shall be paid by the purchaser. The apex court in Amrit Product (India) Ltd. V. Chief Engineer (O & M) Circle and another (2005 (7) SCC 393) held that the Board can always proceed against the assets of the Company and change of personnel or Managing Director would not stand in the way of the Board from proceeding against the assets of the company for realization of any amount due from the private limited company. In such circumstances, we hold that the Board is not justified in personally proceeding against Krishna Pillai since he has not executed any agreement undertaking that he would be liable for the dues. In such circumstances, we are inclined to allow the appeal, W.A.No.1072 of 2005 and set aside the judgment of the learned single judge. O.P.No.18624 of 1999 would stand allowed as above. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be allowed to approach the Board for challenging the demand for exorbitant penal interest. Petitioner is permitted to approach the Board by filing representation and on filing such representation, the Board shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law.