ORDER 24.8.2007 — Heard Miss S.L. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel for O.Ps. The petitioner is a partnership Firm and is engaged in manufacturing iron and steel rods in the district of Jharsuguda. For non-payment of the outstanding loan dues by one M/s. Konark Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Jharsuguda, to the Orissa State Financial Corporation, the said unit was put to auction and the petitioner purchased the properties of the said unit and running the unit at Jharsuguda. The power supply to M/s. Konark Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. was disconnected because of non-payment of electrical dues to the tune of Rs.6,16,307.01 and disconnection was made on 24.4.2001. After taking over the aforesaid unit, when the peti¬tioner applied for supply of power by entering into an agreement with the O.Ps., the O.Ps. initially demanded payment of the dues outstanding against the previous consumer, i.e., M/s. Konark Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., and thereafter the petitioner entered into an agreement, vide Annexure-5, purported to be in Standard Agreement Form, for supply of electrical energy to its unit and as the petitioner was in need of electrical energy to run its unit, it was forced to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which the petitioner was not legally liable to pay. Now the present writ application has been filed for a direction to the O.Ps. to refund the aforesaid amount to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner being the auction purchaser of the unit was not liable to pay the dues outstanding against the previous consumer, i.e., M/s. Konark Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., which was covered by a sepa¬rate agreement. According to Miss Patnaik, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can be made liable to pay the said amount even if for the sake of getting the power supply under the most disadvantages circumstances, when it started its industry, it paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the outstanding dues of M/s. Konark Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. The point raised by Miss Patnaik is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Sunil Rajgharhia v. Orissa State Financial Corporation and anoth¬er, 2003 (I) OLR 260 , wherein it was held that the auction pur¬chaser cannot be made to pay the liability of the previous con¬tracting party for supply of electricity. Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to another decision of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Agrawal v. O.S.F.C. AIR 2007 Orissa 37, where¬in it was held- “20. A perusal of Clause 9 makes it clear that by not refer¬ring the name of its erstwhile consumer, namely, M/s. Maa Bhawani Rice Industries, WESCO in clause 9 of the agreement has referred to the earlier agreement dated 24.12.1992 presumably with M/s. Maa Bhawani Rice Industries and provided that all arrears and liabilities under the old and superseded agreement shall be treated as arrears and liabilities under the present agreement. It has already been noted that WESCO has no such power under the statute to treat arrears under the superseded agreement as ar¬rears under the present agreement. Therefore, the said clause on the face of it is ultra vires the provision of Section 43 of the said Act which fastens an obligation on WESCO to supply electric¬ity to a consumer.” In the particular case, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the O.Ps.-WESCO is that the petitioner on its own volition entered into the agreement with the O.Ps. agreeing to pay the dues of the previous consumer. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. draws our attention to Clause-8 of the present Agree¬ment (Annexure-5). Though the name of the previous consumer is not reflected therein, the following is the covenant in Clause-8 : “(8) Provided that all arrears and liabilities under the old or superseded agreement shall be treated as arrears and liabili¬ties under the present agreement.” Learned counsel for the O.Ps. tries to distinguish this case from the cases referred to by the petitioner and submits that petitioners in the cases cited above had not agreed to pay the dues whereas in the case at hand the petitioner has lost its right to agitate the matter as it has agreed to such a condition, which is incorporated in Clause-8 of the Standard Agreement (Annexure-5). In this regard, we may say that execution of Standard Agree¬ment for supply of electricity energy is provided under Regula¬tion 15 of the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribu¬tion (Conditions of Supply) Code, 1998. The Standard Agreement so prescribed in Form-3 of the said Code contains eight clauses. The content of Clause-8 of the present agreement (Annexure-5) does not find place in the Standard Agreement so prescribed in Form-3. The Standard Agreement so prescribed in Form-3 of the said Code contains eight clauses. The content of Clause-8 of the present agreement (Annexure-5) does not find place in the Standard Agreement so prescribed in Form-3. The insertion has been done in the statutory agreement by the O.P., which it could not have been. Same was the case in Ajay Kumar Agrawal (supra) wherein this Court held that the supplier had no power under the statute to treat arrears under the super¬seded agreement as arrears under the present agreement. There¬fore, even if the petitioner has entered into such an agreement and paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the arrear and liability under the superseded agreement in order to get the power supply to its unit, Clause-8 of the agreement on the face of it is ultra vires the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, we allow this writ application and direct the O.Ps. to adjust the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which the petitioner has paid, against its future bills. Application allowed.