JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The respondent herein purchased a homestead land with a building standing thereon on 10-8-2004, from one Smt. Bakul Karmakar and applied to the SDO, Electrical, Dhajanagar, Udaipur, South Tripura, for domestic electric connection to the said residential house. Based on the application so made, an order was passed by the SDO, Electrical, Dhajanagar, granting requisite sanction. Pursuant to the sanction so granted, the petitioner completed internal wiring of his house and informed the authority concerned to ascertain the estimated cost to be deposited by him. Surprisingly, however, on 17-6-2005, the sanction was unilaterally withdrawn and cancelled without assigning any reason therefor. Further enquiry made by the petitioner revealed that one Samarjit Karmakar was a tenant of Smt. Bakul Karmakar aforementioned from whom the petitioner had purchased the said land and the building, the said tenant had obtained industrial electric connection to his house by extension from the house of Smt. Bakul Karmakar and defaulted in making payment of the dues. Consequently, industrial extension, granted to him, was disconnected and a proceeding was initiated for recovery of the dues as arrear of land revenue under the relevant provisions of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. The appellant-Corporation demanded that the writ petitioner must, first, clear the dues of the said tenant and only thereafter she would be given domestic electric connection. The legality and reasonableness of the demand so raised by the appellant-Corporation was put to challenge by the writ petitioner by making a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which gave rise to W.P. (C) No. 282 of 2006. 2. The present appellants, as respondents in the writ petition, resisted the writ petition by contending, inter alia, that the writ petitioner is legally bound to clear the dues of the former tenant, who had been in the use and occupation of the said premises, before domestic electric connection be granted to the said premises. 3. By judgment and order dated 2-4-2007, the said writ petition was allowed with a direction to the present appellants, as respondents in the writ petition, to provide domestic electric connection to the said premises of the writ petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of delivery of the judgment. Aggrieved by the direction so given, the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Aggrieved by the direction so given, the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Somik Deb and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation. Also heard Mr. P.R. Barman, learned Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner. 5. While considering the present appeal, what needs to be noted is that the only question, which we are required to answer in the present writ appeal, is as to whether the writ petitioner, who has purchased the said building is under any contractual liability to clear the dues arising out of the electric connection, which had been provided to the industrial unit of the tenant of the previous owner before the present petitioner came to picture seeking domestic connection. In other words, the question to be answered, in the present appeal, is as to whether the payment of dues of the previous defaulting tenant can be set as a pre-condition for granting domestic connection to a subsequent tenant or owner of the land or the building, as the case may be, 6. While considering the question posed above, what needs to be noted is that in Isha Marbles v.Bihar State Electricity Board reported in [1995] 1 SCR 847, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court took the view that an auction purchaser is not bound to clear the arrear of the previous owner of the premises to which the electric connection is sought, for, the buyer of a property is under no obligation to pay the arrears incurred by the previous owner. In Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. v. Gujarat Inns Private Ltd. reported in AIR 2004 SC 217, the Apex Court held that when it is a case of fresh connection, the auction purchaser cannot be held liable to pay the arrears incurred by the previous owner in the absence of any statutory obligation. In Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. (supra), the correctness of the wider proposition of law laid down in Isha Marbles (supra) was, however, doubted. 7. By referring to Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is, now submitted, On behalf of the appellant, that unless a person, who seeks reconnection or new connection to a premises, clears the dues of the earlier defaulter in respect of the same premises, the licensee, i.e. the Electricity Board, would be justified in not providing electric connection to such premises. Support of this submission is sought to be derived from the decision in Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. M/s. Paramount Polymers Private Ltd. 2006 AIR SCW 5354. While considering the case of Paramount Polymers (supra), what needs to be noted is that on Paramount Polymers (supra) the terms and conditions of the supply of electrical energy stipulated clearance of the arrears before reconnection or new connection is provided to the premises in respect whereof any arrear was pending irrespective of the fact as to whether the person seeking such connection was himself a defaulter or not. Because of such express terms and conditions, the Apex Court held that the licensee, i.e. the Electricity Board, was justified in insisting upon clearance of the arrears. 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. has not till date made any statutory provisions nor has it formulated terms and conditions for providing of electricity connection subject to the condition that the fresh connection or reconnection would be allowed only upon payment of the earlier dues. In such circumstances, the appellant could not have insisted for the payment of the earlier dues of the tenant, who had been in occupation of the premises, in question, before the present petitioner came to picture. If the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. makes any such statutory provision or incorporates any such terms and conditions for supply of electricity, then, it may be justified in refusing to provide electric connection. 9. Because of what has been discussed and pointed out above, we do not find that the judgment and order, which form the subject of challenge in the present writ appeal, suffer from any infirmity, factual or legal. 10. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this appeal is not admitted and shall accordingly stand dismissed. No costs.