ORDER 1. Order passed in this Writ Petition No. 277512007 shall also lead to the final disposal of WP No. 1800/2007 because of the identical issue involved in both the writ petitions being same. 2. The issue is whether the respondent Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company is justified in its action in declining to grant fresh electricity connection to the premises, purchased in auction by the petitioners, in lieu of recovery of electric charges due on previous owner. 3. The brief facts of WP No. 2775/2007 are that the petitioner being successful in a bid in auction purchased Mis. Shri Ram Carbon Pvt. (Ltd.) District Centre Imlikheda Chhindwara (M.P.), a sale-deed in pursuance was executed in favour of the petitioner on 27.6.2004. The said premises carried a liability of electricity charges to the tune of Rs. 46,084/-, therefore, when the petitioner requested for grant of fresh electricity connection the respondents relying upon clause 4.17 of M.P. Electricity Supply Code 2004 declined to grant the same vide communication dated 27.2.2006. 4. Similarly. in WP No. 1800/2007 the petitioner purchased the premises situated at Mouza Khamaria Tahsil and District Narsinghpur. The said premises had the electricity dues through its previous owner to the tune of Rs. 1,51.000/- and the request for fresh electricity was turned down on the anvil of clause 4.17 of the Code 2004 vide communication dated 8.3.2004. 5. The issue, however, need not detain lung, for the simple reason that the Regulatory Commission in exercise of powers under the Electricity Act 2003 vide its Ninth amendment has substituted 4.17 enabling thereby the auction purchaser from financial institutions to seek fresh electricity supply. 6. The amended clause 4.17 which now stand is in the following terms: "4.17. 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 or as occupier and or owner of the premises, has any arrears of electricity dues or other dues on the premises where the new connection is applied for and such dues arc payable to the licensee, the requisition for supply may not be entertained by the Licensee until the dues are paid in full. However, release of new connections shall not be refused by the Distribution Licensee in following cases: (i) If the lease deed is cancelled by the State Govt. on account of any reason and allocated to a new party/consumer, then the new party/ consumer shall not be required to pay the energy dues of erstwhile consumer. (ii) If the property is attached and sold by the Income Tax Department/ Commercial Tax Department or such other Govt. Departments for recovery of their dues, then the new purchaser shall not be required to pay the energy dues of erstwhile consumer. (iii) If the Financial institutions created under the State Act/Central, Act and sale property for recovery of their dues, then the purchaser shall not be required to pay the energy dues of erstwhile consume. (emphasis supplied) (iv) On vacation of Govt. Quarter/Flat on transfer of an employee leaving arrears of energy charges, new occupant shall not be required to pay the energy charges, new occupant shall not be required to pay the energy dues of erstwhile consumer. (v) If there is a specific order from a Court for non-recovery of arrears outstanding on the premises." 7. Clause 4.17 (iii) now enables the auction purchaser to seek fresh connection without shouldering the burden of charges of previous consumers. 8. Though valiant efforts were made by the learned counsel for the respondents to dislodge the case of the petitioner, but in view of the present amendment in Supply Code 2004 stipulating therein the exemption under clause 4.17 (iii) the force gets extinguished. 9. The judgment relied upon by the respondent, viz., Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitron Nigam Ltd. v. M/s. Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd. [AIR 2007 SC 21 turn on its own facts and arc distinguishable. It was a case where the new electricity connection was declined to a new owner of the premises on the basis of the provisions contained in clause 21-A inserted in the Terms and Conditions of Supply of electrical energy by the Oakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. with effect from 27.11.2001 whereunder clause (b) stipulated that reconnection or new connection shall not be given to any premises where there are arrears on any account due to the Nigam unless these are cleared in advance. It further stipulated that if the new owner/occupier/allottee remits the amount due from the previous consumer, the Nigam shall provide reconnection or new connection depending upon whether the service remains disconnected/dismantled as the case may be. In the case at hand there is a provision as contained in clause 4.7 (iii) of Supply Code, 2004, which speaks otherwise. Therefore, the principle laid down in the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitron Nigam Ltd. v. M/s. Paromount Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in the present case. 10. Furthermore, a broader issue regarding the retrospectivity of the new clause 4.17 is sought to be ushered in by the learned counsel for the respondents, who contended, inter alia, that the substitution of clause 4.17 in the Supply Code has been brought into existence w.e.f. 11.8.2006, whereas the application for grant of new electricity connection by the petitioner was prior to the amendment and is governed by the unamended clause. The said contention of the learned counsel for the respondent has been noted to be rejected for the reason that when a statute provides new remedies for enforcement of existing rights will apply to future as well as past causes of action, because they do not affect existing rights and are classified as procedural. {Please see: Principles of Statutory Interpretation : (Justice G.P. Singh 11th Edition)}. 11. In cases of Memon Abdul Karim Haji Tayah, Central Cutlery Stores, Veraval v. Deputy Custodian General, New Delhi and others [ AIR 1964 SC 1256 ] their Lordships of the apex Court were of the opinion that "it is well settled that procedural amendments to a law apply, in the absence of any thing to the contrary, retrospectively in the sense that they apply to all actions after the date they come into force even though the actions may have begun earlier or the claim on which the action may be based may be of an anterior date. 12. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the amended clause 4.17 substituted vide Madhya Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2004 {Ninth Amendment [AG-1 (ix) of 2006] is applicable on all its fours in the case at hand. This view is supported by judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Satish Ganf?rade v. M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitrem Company Ltd. and others [(2008) 3 MPHT l49]}. 13. This view is supported by judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Satish Ganf?rade v. M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitrem Company Ltd. and others [(2008) 3 MPHT l49]}. 13. Consequently, the impugned communication whereby the new electricity connection has been denied on the anvil that previous consumer did not clear the electricity dues, is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the request for new electricity connection in accordance with Rules, within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. 14. The petitioner are allowed to the extent above. No costs. Petitions allowed.