Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition has been preferred against Order No. SEBC/oandm/04/1132 dated 23-1-1996 raising thereby a demand of Rs. 8,24,310/- against the petitioner and disconnection notice dated 10-4-1996 and the bill dated 16-2-1996 for a sum of Rs. 9,36,617/- purporting to be towards electricity dues of sister companies. ( 2. ) PETITIONER is a limited company duly registered under the provisions of companies Act. It obtained electricity connection from respondent No. 1 and an agreement dated 17-1-1987 (Annexure/p-1) was duly executed between the petitioner and the electricity board. It has been paying electricity charges in due manner in accordance with the terms of the agreement and was not in arrears of any kind as revealed in the bills for preceding six months which are cumulatively submitted as Annexure/p-1 a. On 23-1-1996, the petitioner received a letter (Annexure/p-2) from respondents that a sum of Rs. 3,66,248/- is due on petitioners sister company, namely, United Electronics (India) Ltd. and likewise a sum of Rs. 4,58,062. 00/- is due on another sister company of the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to pay the total amount of Rs. 8,24,310/- and on failure to pay the aforesaid amount it was threatened of disconnection. It was duly replied vide Annexure/p-3 dated 27-1-1996 that the petitioner has never been a defaulter and it has no concern with the alleged electricity dues of its sister companies. On 16-2-1996, the petitioner received a bill for its Unit wherein arrears of the sister companies were also added to the tune of Rs. 9,36,617/ -. It was again objected to in writing. The respondents instead of withdrawing the demand, issued a disconnection notice dated 10-4-1996 (Annexure/-6) to the petitioner informing thereby that in case of failure to pay a sum of Rs. 11,14,979/- its electricity connection would be disconnected. It is submitted by the petitioner that it is bound to make the payment as per the agreement Annexure/p-1 and is not liable to make the payment of its sister companies. Respondents have no power to make a demand of liability of the sister companies of the petitioner and has further no power to disconnect its electricity for want of payment of dues of the sister companies. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for issuance of writ of Certiorari for quashing Annexure/p-2, P-1 and P-6. ( 3. ) RESPONDENTS submitted a joint return. Respondents have no power to make a demand of liability of the sister companies of the petitioner and has further no power to disconnect its electricity for want of payment of dues of the sister companies. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for issuance of writ of Certiorari for quashing Annexure/p-2, P-1 and P-6. ( 3. ) RESPONDENTS submitted a joint return. Inter alia, it has been contended that M/s United Watches Ltd. and United Electronics (India) Ltd. are the sister companies of the petitioner and they are situated in the campus of the petitioner. They belong to the United Group of the petitioner which is evident from the project report contained in Annexure/r-1. Accordingly, the petitioner is liable to make the payment and the respondents have a right to recover the amount of dues of the sister companies from the petitioner. ( 4. ) SHRI Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel and Shri M. L. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel made their respective submissions which have been considered in the light of the material on record and the provisions of law governing the situation. ( 5. ) SECTION 2 (c) of (The Indian) Electricity Act, 1910 defines a consumer as under:-"consumer" means any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee or the government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be. Sub-section (2) of section 23 of the said Act prohibits a consumer from using electrical energy without making payment of charges. Sub-section (3) and (4) empower the respondents to charge for the energy supplied to consumer in the following manner :- (3) in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a licensee may charge for energy supplied by him to any consumer (a) by the actual amount of energy so supplied, or (b) by the electrical quantity contained in the supply, or (c) by such other method as may be approved by the (State government ). (4) Any charges made by a licensee under clause (c) of sub-section (3)may be based upon; and vary in accordance with, any one or more of the following considerations, namely :- (a) the consumers load factor, or (b) the power factor of his load, or (c) his total consumption of energy during any stated period, or (d) the hours at which the supply of energy is required. In view of the aforesaid the petitioner having obtained electricity connection from respondent No. 1 is, obviously, liable to make payment of the charges, under the provisions of law as well as the agreement contained in annexure/p-1. ( 6. ) SHRI Jaiswal, learned senior counsel failed to point out any provision whereunder dues of sister concern may be recovered from the consumer. The agreement contained in Annexure/p-1 does not empower to realize the dues from the petitioner of its sister concern. Project report contained in Annexure/r-1 has been relied upon to show that M/s United Watches Ltd. and United Electronics (India) Ltd. are the sister concerns of the petitioner. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner at all. However, it is not disputed by the parties that all three companies were having separate electricity connections. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner permitted its sister concerns to avail electricity through its own connection. ( 7. ) MAIN question in this writ petition is what is meant by sister concern and whether the petitioner is liable for the dues against its sister concern. The term sister concern came up for consideration before Honble supreme Court of India in the case of A. P. Gas Power Corporation Ltd. vs. A. P. State Regulatory Commission and another, (2004) 10 SCC 511 . It has been held:-"the term "sister concern" has been explained as "a concern under the same group". There is no further clarification or clue as to which are those concerns which may be considered under the same group. The expression "sister concern" used in para (4) of the Memorandum of understanding certainly does not mean a concern which is owned or is a subsidiary of the participating industry. It would be a concern or unit different from the participating industry and not a part of it. May be, that the same group may manage two different independent units carrying on the same nature of activities. It would be a concern or unit different from the participating industry and not a part of it. May be, that the same group may manage two different independent units carrying on the same nature of activities. They may be addressed as sister concerns but would definitely have separate entity and identity of their own. " Relying upon the aforesaid paragraph, it has been contended by Shri jaideep Sirpurkar that M/s United Watches Ltd. and United Electronics (India)Ltd. though may be treated as sister concern of the petitioner, but they having obtained the electricity connection separately, their dues cannot be clubbed with the charges of the petitioner and the same cannot be demanded from it. ( 8. ) IT may be seen that section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 empowers the electricity Board to cut off the supply of electricity if the consumer neglects to pay the charges of electricity due from him. This provision is reproduced below for convenience :- 24. Discontinuance of supply to consumer neglecting to pay charge.- (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum, other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply-line or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied, and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer. (2) Where any difference or dispute which by or under this Act is required to be determined by an Electrical Inspector, has been referred to the Inspector before notice as aforesaid has been given by the licensee, the licensee shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section until the Inspector has given his decision : provided that the prohibition contained in this sub-section shall not apply in any case in which the licensee has made a request in writing to the consumer for a deposit with the Electrical Inspector of the amount of the licensees charges or other sums in dispute or for the deposit of the licensees further charges for energy as they accrue, and the consumer has failed to comply with such request. " ( 9. ) WHILE considering the scope of aforesaid provision, the Apex Court in the case of Isha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and another, (1995) 2 scc 648 has clearly held that the Electricity Board cannot seek the enforcement of contractual liability against the third party. The Apex Court has clearly held that section 24 would come into play when : " (a) the consumer neglects to pay any charge for energy, due from him to a licensee, or (b) the consumer neglects to pay sums, other than a charge for energy, due from him to the licensee. In these circumstances, the licensee may after giving the consumer a written notice of not less than seven clear days cut off the supply and continue to keep the supply cut off till the consumer shall have paid the sum or sums due. However, resort to section 24 is not the only remedy available. The general remedy to file a suit will always be available to the Board. " In the present case it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not made payment of any charge, whatsoever, due from it. On the contrary, the defence is that the respondents are empowered to make recovery of the dues of the sister concerns from the petitioner. Thus, section 24 obviously does not get attracted and the respondents are not found to be empowered to make recovery from the petitioner of the dues of its sister concerns. ( 10. ) SHRI Jaiswal, learned senior counsel further referred to Annexure/r-2 and R-3 in order to justify the defence of the respondents. Thus, section 24 obviously does not get attracted and the respondents are not found to be empowered to make recovery from the petitioner of the dues of its sister concerns. ( 10. ) SHRI Jaiswal, learned senior counsel further referred to Annexure/r-2 and R-3 in order to justify the defence of the respondents. The letter contained in annexure/r-2 has been issued by the petitioner which contained an admission that M/s United Watches Ltd. and United Electronics (India) Ltd. are the sister concerns of the petitioner. Vide Annexure/r-2 petitioner has issued no objection letter to the Electricity Board for lending the power from its transformer to the said sister concerns. It has been clearly mentioned in Annexure/r-2 that the petitioner has no objection in M. P. E. Bs lending the power to the sister concerns of the petitioner through petitioners transformer. Thus, ultimately, the power was made available by the M. P. E. B. to the sister concerns and not by the petitioner directly. Similarly, it is not revealed in Annexure/r-3 that the petitioner company had given its consent to bear the liability of the electrical dues of its sister concerns. ( 11. ) SHRI Jaiswal, learned senior counsel made a feeble attempt by submitting that the corporate veil can be lifted to determine the ultimate liability of the petitioner for its sister concerns. For this purpose he relied upon the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of State of U. P. and others vs. Renusagar Power Co. and others, (1988) 4 SCC 59 , Secretary. H. S. E. B. vs. Suresh and others, (1999) 3 SCC 601 and Kapila Hingorani vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 1 . This plea cannot be invoked at all for the reasons that, firstly, the necessary facts have not been pleaded at all for applying the theory of lifting the corporate veil. Secondly, the provisions of Electricity Act as well as m. P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1961 do not empower the respondents to make recovery from any consumer of the dues of another consumer including that of sister concern. Thirdly, the agreement executed between the consumer and Electricity Board does not make a provision for realization from the consumer of dues outstanding in the name of its sister concern who itself happens to be a separate consumer. ( 12. Thirdly, the agreement executed between the consumer and Electricity Board does not make a provision for realization from the consumer of dues outstanding in the name of its sister concern who itself happens to be a separate consumer. ( 12. ) IT may be seen that M. P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues recovery) Act, 1961 has been enforced to provide for the expeditious recovery or certain sums due to the M. P. Electricity Board. Shri Jaiswal, learned senior counsel has failed to point out any provision in law relating to electricity which may be invoked for making recovery from the petitiorer of the dues of its sister concern. Surprisingly, there is no material on record to show that the respondents have taken any steps to make recovery of any dues from the sister concerns. ( 13. ) AFTER substantial hearing, the respondents submitted an application for withdrawal of demand vide LA. No. 1365/2007. The respondents have mentioned that post dated cheques have been submitted in the matter and without prejudice a liberty be accorded to them to recover the amount if the cheques are not encashed. Since, the respondents have not chosen to withdraw the demand against the petitioner, unconditionally, and the matter has already been heard finally, this Court prefers to decide the matter on merits on the basis of aforesaid discussions. LA. No. 1365/2007, accordingly, stands disposed of. ( 14. ) IN the result, it is held that the respondents have no power to make recovery of the dues of the sister concerns from the petitioner and consequently, the demand made vide Annexure/p-2, P-1a and P-6 is held to be highly illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and Annexure/p-2, P-1a P-6 are accordingly hereby quashed. Respondents will bear the cost of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 5000/-, if already certified. Petition allowed.