ORDER M.M. Das, J. - The petitioner, which is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, has sought for a direction to the opposite parties 1 to 4 to provide power supply to the petitioner's unit and to quash the letter under Annexure-3 issued by the Executive Engineer-opposite party No. 4 to the petitioner-Company. 2. M/s. A.B.S. Spinning Orissa Ltd. (in short "ABSSOL", which was a wholly owned subsidiary company of the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (IDCOL)-opposite party No. 5, was wound up by the order of the Company Judge. The winding up proceeding was initiated on being referred to by the BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, as there was no chance of revival of the said Company. Pursuant to order passed by the Company Judge, the opposite party No. 5 floated tender notices for the sale of the three Spinning Mills. Various parties participated in the tender process. After a long drawn legal battle, M/s. Rajshree Vanijya Private Ltd. and/or its nominees were found to be the highest bidders to purchase all the three Spinning Mills of ABSSOL in an auction sale held in Court. The present petitioner is one of the nominees of M/s. Rajshree Vanijya Private Ltd. By order dated 8-9-2006 passed in Company Act Case No. 4 of 2002 and Misc. Case No. 73 of 2006, the Company Judge has directed the opposite party No. 5 to deliver possession of the three units of ABSSOL to M/s. Rajshree Vanijya Private Ltd. and/or its nominees being the highest bidder in the auction conducted by the Company Judge in open Court. The said order of the Company Judge was challenged by one M/s. Ruhatiya Spinners Pvt. Ltd. before the Division Bench of this Court in COA No. 8 of 2006. The Divi sion Bench in its appellate side, by judgment dated 22-12-2006 dismissed "the appeal and the highest offer of Rs. 15.65 crores of M/s. Rajshree Vanijya Private Ltd. and/ or its nominees and the order dated 8-9-2006 passed by the Company Judge remained unaltered. Again by order dated 5-1-2007, the Company Judge in Misc. The Divi sion Bench in its appellate side, by judgment dated 22-12-2006 dismissed "the appeal and the highest offer of Rs. 15.65 crores of M/s. Rajshree Vanijya Private Ltd. and/ or its nominees and the order dated 8-9-2006 passed by the Company Judge remained unaltered. Again by order dated 5-1-2007, the Company Judge in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2007 directed that the unit of Aska Spinning Mills be transferred in favour of M/s. Rajshree Vanijya Private Ltd. and M/s. George Distributors Pvt. Ltd. The unit of Baripada Spinning Mills was directed to be transferred in favour of M/s. Rajshree Vanijya Private Ltd. and M/s. Krishna Chlorate Pvt. Ltd. Similarly the unit of Sonepur Spinning Mills was directed to be transferred in favour of M/s. Rajshree Vanijya Private Ltd. and M/s. Phiroja Vinimoy Pvt. Ltd. Pursuant to the above orders, the Sonepur Spinning Mill unit was handed over to the petitioner by the opposite party No. 5. As no deed of conveyance was executed, the petitioner moved the Company Judge for appropriate direction and the Company Judge by order dated 9-3-2007 directed the IDCOL to execute the document and deed of conveyance in favour of the purchaser, as early as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks without including therein any clause or restriction restraining the purchasers from offering the properties transferred in their favour, as security in favour of any Financial Institution or Bankers Association for generating funds. Since despite the above order, no deed of conveyance was executed in favour of the petitioner, so far as Sonepur Spinning Mill is concerned, the petitioner moved the Company Judge once again and by order dated 13-4-2007, the Company Judge again directed the Collector to take effective steps for facilitating transfer of the property in favour of the purchasers and for execution of the deed of conveyance within a period of two weeks. 3. The present dispute arose, when the petitioner was all set to run the Sonepur Spinning Mill, it informed the opposite party No. 4 about the order of the Company Judge and as per the agreement between opposite party No. 5 and the petitioner-Company, the petitioner-Company has no liability for any debts and liabilities of the vendor, which are to be discharged by the vendor, as on the date of transfer. The petitioner-Company requested the opposite party No. 4 for issuance of feasibility report for 500 KVA Contact Demand out of 1500 KW connected load. It also mentioned about the. existence of infrastructure and the urgency of requirement of power to run the Spinning Mill and the petitioner Company being urgently in need of power to run the Mill, it applied for a temporary connection for a period of one month to the opposite party No. 1 through its Chief Engineer. When the matter stood this, the opposite party No. 4 vide its letter under An-nexure-3 informed the petitioner as thereunder: In inviting the subject cited above, it is to inform you that, an amount of Rs. 5,00,71,635.35 (Rupees Five Crores Seventy One Thousands Six Hundred Thirty-Five and Paise Thirty Five) only has been kept outstanding as arrear of Electric Bills against Sonepur Spinning Mill as on 31 -8-2002 and the present proposed power supply as applied by M/s. Phiroja Vinimoy Pvt. Ltd., is meant for the same premises. So, under such circumstances, WESCO is not m a position to give permission for power supply to the applicant M/s. Phiroja Vinimoy Pvt. Ltd. who has taken over the Sonepur Spinning Mill by virtue of an agreement, if any, unless all the arrear amounts are cleared. Being aggrieved by the action of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 in not supplying the electricity to the unit of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the reliefs, as stated above. 4. After issuance of Rule though the opposite parties have entered their appearance through their respective counsel, but no return has been filed to the writ petition. 5. During pendency of this petition, this Court in Misc. Case No. 14627 of 2006 passed order dated 18-12-2007 to the following effect. As the relief sought in this Misc. Petition and that sought in the writ petition are same, without issuing any direction, this Court observes that if an application is filed by the petitioner before the opposite party-authorities for power supply to the unit, the same shall be duly considered by the said authorities. It is made clear that pendency of the writ petition shall not stand in the way of the opposite parties to give power supply to the petitioner's unit, if there will be no impediment. The Misc. Case is disposed of. It is made clear that pendency of the writ petition shall not stand in the way of the opposite parties to give power supply to the petitioner's unit, if there will be no impediment. The Misc. Case is disposed of. The petitioner again preferred a Misc. Case, being Misc. Case No. 6415 of 2008, which was disposed of with the following order: Heard. It is submitted that though in consonance with the order dated 18-12-2007 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No. 14627/2006 the petitioner had filed a representation before the opposite party No. 1 for supply of power, the said authority is maintaining stony silence. It is submitted that due to non-supply of electricity the petitioner is facing insurmountable hardship. Considering the submissions made, the Misc. Case is disposed of directing the opposite party No. 1 to deal with the representation said to have been filed by the petitioner in consonance with the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Another, and take appropriate action as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to file the xerox copy of the said judgment as well as this order before the opposite party No. 1 within one week. 6. The representation of the petitioner, which was directed to be disposed in consonance with the ratio of the decision in the case of Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Another, was rejected by the WESCO for which the petitioner has preferred another Misc. Case, being Misc. Case No. 8540 of 2008, making a prayer therein to direct the opposite parties to provide power supply to the petitioner's unit at Sonepur immediately. The letter dated 12-6-2008 of the Deputy General Manager (Commercial) of WESCO addressed to the petitioner has been annexed to the said Misc. Case, the contents of which read as follows: With reference to your above letter and in obedience to the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 15 May 2008, it is to intimate you that the precedence cited against the case of Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Another cited in Misc. Case, the contents of which read as follows: With reference to your above letter and in obedience to the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 15 May 2008, it is to intimate you that the precedence cited against the case of Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Another cited in Misc. Case No. 6415 of 2008 is applicable where the ownership of the premises is transferred under the provisions of Section 29(1) of State Financial Corporations Act 1951. But in your case, it is not applicable as the labilities and assets are not transferred under the said Act. In view under Reg. 13(10)(b) of OERC Dist. (Conditions of Supply) Code-2004, you are requested to deposit the outstanding amount against M/s. Sonepur Spinning Mill before availing power supply. After that, your application for power supply will be processed. 7. It appears from the above letter that the WESCO in view of Regulation 13(10)(b) of the OERO Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 asked the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount against M/s. Sonepur Spinning Mill before availing power supply and also intimated that the application for power supply will be processed after depositing the outstanding amount. Regulation 13(10)(b) reads as follows: 13. Licensee's obligation to supply and power to recover expenditure-- (1) to (9) xxx xxx xxx (10). Transfer of Service connection (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) The service connection from the name of a person to the name of another consumer shall not be transferred unless the arrear charges pending against the previous occupier are cleared: Provided that this shall not be applicable when the ownership of the premises is transferred under the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act. 8. Mr. B.K. Pattnaik. learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 contended that no fault can be found with the letter of the Deputy General Manager, WESCO, who, pursuant to the interim order passed in this Court on 15-5-2008, considered the representation of the petitioner in consonance with the decision in the case of Isha Marbles (supra) and has rightly come to the conclusion that in view of the Regulation 13(10)(b), the petitioner has to deposit the outstanding amount against M/s. Sonepur Spinning Mill before availing power supply. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd., and submitted that the Supreme Court in the said case has laid down that unless the arrear amount due to the licensee is paid in respect of a premises, supply of electricity cannot be made to the said premises even in case of a transferee. 9. Mr. S.S. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy General Manager has misconceived the facts of the case and has acted contrary to law in refusing power supply to the petitioner unless the petitioner deposits the outstanding amount. He submitted that the petitioner, who is the purchaser of the unit, having purchased the same is a liquidation proceeding under the Companies Act from the Official Liquidator, it is a fresh prospective consumer of electricity and the payment of previous outstanding dues, if any, cannot be a condition precedent for supply of electricity to the petitioner's unit. Mr. Das has referred to the decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Agrawal Vs. O.S.F.C. and Others, in support of his contention. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner is a purchaser of Spinning Mill from the previous Company, which has been wound up. The said purchase was made by the petitioner during the winding up proceeding when the unit was put to auction. The said purchase by the petitioner cannot be construed to be a transfer of ownership or transfer of the service connection from the Company which has been wound up to the petitioner Company. In view of the nature of acquisition of the Spinning Mill Unit by the petitioner Company in a proceeding under the Companies Act, Regulation 13(10)(b) can have no application to the facts of the case. Dues, if any, of the WESCO on the Company, which has already been wound up, i.e., (ABSSOL) can only be paid to the WESCO from out of funds generated in the winding up proceeding on sale of the wound up Company as per the provisions of the Companies Act. 11. In Isha Marbles (supra), the Supreme Court was considering a similar question where the auction purchaser applied for supply of electricity for the same premises to which already electricity was supplied and disconnected for non-clearance of the dues. 11. In Isha Marbles (supra), the Supreme Court was considering a similar question where the auction purchaser applied for supply of electricity for the same premises to which already electricity was supplied and disconnected for non-clearance of the dues. The question was whether the auction purchaser was liable to meet the liability of the old consumer of electricity to the premises which was purchased by him in the auction sale from the State Financial Corporation u/s 29(1) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Upholding the contention of the auction purchaser, the Supreme Court held that whether the premises comes to be owned or occupied by the auction purchaser, when such purchaser seeks supply of electric energy he cannot be called upon to clear the past arrears as a condition precedent to supply. It was further held that there is no charge over the property. Considering the facts of the said case, the Supreme Court observed that what matters is the contract entered into by the erstwhile consumer with the Board. The Board cannot seek the enforcement of contractual liability against the third party. 12. In the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd. the Supreme Court was considering the effect of a term incorporated in the terms and conditions of supply of electrical energy by the licensee, providing that in cases, where a consumer had defaulted In paying the electrical charges and there has been a consequent disconnection of supply, no fresh connection in respect of the premises would be given to a purchaser, unless the purchaser cleared the amount that was left in arrears. The Supreme Court in the said case distinguished the case of Isha Marbles (supra) observing as follows: The position obtaining in Isha Marbles (supra) was akin to the position that was available in the case on hand in view of the Haryana Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1970. There was no insertion of a clause like Clause 21A as in the present case, in the Terms and Conditions of Supply involved in that case. There was no insertion of a clause like Clause 21A as in the present case, in the Terms and Conditions of Supply involved in that case. The decision proceeded on the basis that the contract for supply was only with the previous consumer and the obligation or liability was enforceable only against that consumer and since there was no contractual relationship with the subsequent purchaser and he was not a consumer within the meaning of the Electricity Act, the dues of the previous consumer could not be recovered from the purchaser. This Court had no occasion to consider the effect of clause like Clause 21A in the Terms and Conditions of Supply. We are, therefore, of the view that the decision in Isha Marbles (supra) cannot be applied to strike down the condition imposed and the first respondent has to make out a case independent on the ratio of Isha Marbles (supra), though it can rely on its ratio if it is helpful, for attacking the insertion of such a condition for supply of electrical energy. This Court was essentially dealing with the construction of Section 24 of the Electricity Act in arriving at its conclusion. The question of correctness or otherwise of the decision in Isha Marbles (supra), therefore does not arise in this case especially in view of the fact that the High Court has not considered the question whether Clause 21A of the terms and conditions incorporated is invalid for any reason. 13. In the case of Ajay Kumar Agrawal Vs. O.S.F.C. and Others this Court had the occasion to deal with a similar question. Relying upon the various decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of Isha Marbles (supra), this Court came to the conclusion that unless WESCO is empowered by law, which it is not, it cannot treat the arrears of consumption charges by the previous owner as a charge on the immovable property and consequently, it cannot recover the same from a subsequent purchaser as a condition precedent to supply electricity. This Court had further observed in the said case that in exercise of power u/s 181(2)(t)(v)(w) and (x) read with Part IV of the said Act, the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission framed the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code 2004. This Court had further observed in the said case that in exercise of power u/s 181(2)(t)(v)(w) and (x) read with Part IV of the said Act, the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission framed the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code 2004. Under Clause 96 of (he said Code it is provided that the distribution company is entitled to take recourse to proceedings under the Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act,'. 1.962 for realization of the licensee's dues. Therefore, under Clays, e 96 the licensee i.e., the distribution company has a remedy by way of initiating proceeding against the defaulting party under the OPDR Act. 14. There is no clause like Clause 21A as introduced by the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd., and, as has been discussed in the case Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra) in OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004. Hence, the ratio of the decision in the case of Isha Marbles (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, since the petitioner was a purchaser of the unit, from ABSSOL, which was a company under winding up, pursuant to the orders passed by the Company Judge, and was sold in accordance with Rule 273 of the Company (Courts) Rules, 1959, under the scheme of the Companies Act, payment to all creditors are to be made as per the provisions of Sections 529-A and 530 of the said Act, the claim of the licensee if any, towards arrear electricity dues can also be made in accordance with the said provisions and lodged before the Official Liquidator. 15. In view of what has been discussed above, it is clear that the letter dated 12-6-2008 of the Deputy General Manager (Commercial) WESCO under Annexure-1/2 to the Misc. Case No. 8540 of 2008, intimating the petitioner that the law as laid down in the case of Isha Marbles (supra) is applicable where the ownership of the premises is transferred under the provisions of Section 29(1) of the State Financial Corporations Act and it is not applicable to the facts of the present case cannot be sustained. Equally, letter dated 17-11-2007 vide An-nexure-3 to the writ petition, by which the Executive Engineer (Electrical) SED, WESCO, Sonepur intimated the petitioner that an amount of Rs. Equally, letter dated 17-11-2007 vide An-nexure-3 to the writ petition, by which the Executive Engineer (Electrical) SED, WESCO, Sonepur intimated the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 5,00,71,635.35 (Rupees five Crores seventy one thousands six hundred thirty five and paise thirty five) is outstanding as arrear electric bills against Sonepur Spinning Mill as on 31-8-2002 and the present proposed power supply as applied by the petitioner is meant for the same premises for which WESCO is not in a position to give permission for power supply to the petitioner, also cannot be sustained. 16. In the result, letter dated 12-6-2008 under Annexure 1/2 to the, Misc. Case No. 8540 of. 2008 and the letter dated 17-11-2007 vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition are quashed and the opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed to give supply of electricity to the purchased unit of the petitioner on fulfilling all other conditions within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order and such supply cannot be denied on the ground that arrear amounts are due against the previous consumer, i.e. the Company, which has been wound up. 17. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed