JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of an order of learned Single Judge of this Court whereby in effect, the appellant Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) was directed to consider the application of the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) for giving fresh connection of electricity in accordance with Rules, without insisting that the petitioner should first pay to the Board the unpaid dues of the previous owner of the property purchased by the petitioner. 2. The fact giving rise to the writ petition are that there was a partnership firm known as M/s. Sahu Gupta Industries, which had an electricity connection from the Board on the premises in question. M/s. Sahu Gupta Industries left behind more than Rs. 18 lacs as unpaid electricity dues. The premises in question was sold by M/s. Sahu Gupta Industries to the petitioner, who applied for fresh connection. The Board insisted as a pre-condition for grant of fresh electricity connection that the purchaser-petitioner should first clear the electricity dues of M/s Sahu Gupta Industries. 3. The learned Single Judge relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Another, : (1995) 2 SCC 648 and held that the petitioner was not liable to pay the un-paid electricity dues of M/s. Sahu Gupta Industries as a pre-condition for grant of fresh connection, merely because he had purchased the properties in question from M/s. Sahu Gupta Industries. 4. It is not the case of the Board that the said transfer by M/s. Sahu Gupta Industries in favour of the petitioner was a fraudulent or a sham transaction. Indeed no particulars of any such fraud have been mentioned in the pleadings. 5. Regulation 5.5 of J.S.E.R.C. ( Electricity Supply Code) 2005 have been amended by notification dated 14.4.2007 issued by Jharkhand State Electricity Board Regulatory Commission in exercise of the power conferred upon it under Chapter 21 of the said regulations. Indeed no particulars of any such fraud have been mentioned in the pleadings. 5. Regulation 5.5 of J.S.E.R.C. ( Electricity Supply Code) 2005 have been amended by notification dated 14.4.2007 issued by Jharkhand State Electricity Board Regulatory Commission in exercise of the power conferred upon it under Chapter 21 of the said regulations. After the amendment the said regulation 5.5 reads as follows: Amendment to Regulation 5.5- If the applicant, 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, has any arrears of electricity dues or other dues for the premises where the new connection is applied for and such dues are payable to the licensee, the requisition for supply may not be entertained by the licensee until the dues are paid in full. But if the old consumer who had committed default in payment of the dues has left the premises for good and the concerned premises has come in legal possession of a new occupant through transfer or purchase of the concerned property and where the new Incumbent is not connected with the previous owner/occupant in any manner and applied for reconnection of the electrical line in the same disconnected premises, in that event the distribution licensee shall be obliged to order reconnection without realization of the arrear dues of concerned premises from the new incumbent as the purchaser of the premises would not be held liable to meet the liability of the previous consumer in order to secure reconnection. (emphasis supplied) 6. In the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Isha Marbles (Supra), it has been held that the liability to pay electricity charges is a personal liability of the erstwhile consumer which is not a charge over the property. It has also been held in the said decision that the purchaser was not expected to make an enquiry from the Board as to know whether any dues were outstanding to the Board from the previous consumer; nor is it possible for the auction purchaser to find out the personal liability of the debtor. Supreme Court further says that the electricity dues by the previous industry is a contractual liability between the industry and the Board. It is not statutory in nature. Supreme Court further says that the electricity dues by the previous industry is a contractual liability between the industry and the Board. It is not statutory in nature. The purchaser cannot be held liable for any default committed by the previous consumer. 7. Learned Counsel for the Board has placed reliance upon Section 8 of the Bihar & Orrisa Public Demand Recovery Acts, 1914 which says that the amount due from time to time in respect of the certificate shall be a charge upon such property. In our opinion the reliance is misplaced. The said Section 8 may create a charge for the purpose of certificate proceedings, but it will not have the effect of transferring a liability of unpaid dues upon the purchaser of the property from the erstwhile consumer. On first principles, for creating this kind of liability upon the purchaser it has to be shown first that the amount due is a charge upon the property, and then it must also be shown that the purchaser had notice, either actual or constructive, of such charge. 8. When the purchaser of the property is under no legal liability to make payment of the unpaid dues of the erstwhile consumer, he cannot be denied the relief of fresh connection without clearing the dues on any vague concept of equity. Indeed, there is no principle of equity which requires the person to make payment of any amount which he is not legally or otherwise obliged to pay. 9. We have not been show any such departure under the new Electricity Act or its Regulations, as compared to the old Acts or Rules, which were being examined by the Supreme Court in case of Isha Marbles (Supra), as could possibly have the effect of unpaid dues becoming a charge over the property on which the connection had been granted to the erstwhile consumer, or which could possibly have the effect of transferring the liability of unpaid dues of the erstwhile consumer, upon every purchaser of any property of the erstwhile consumer. 10. 10. To demonstrate by way of example if a property were purchased from erstwhile consumer who leaves behind unpaid electricity dues and such purchaser applied for a fresh connection of electricity not on that property but of some other property, the Board could not possibly insist that the purchaser should first clear the dues of the erstwhile consumer merely because he happened to purchase some property from the erstwhile consumer. That being position, to our mind it makes no difference whether the purchaser is seeking a connection on the premises purchased from the erstwhile consumer or upon any other premises. 11. In fact the amended Regulation 5.5 makes it needless to go into such discussion any further, 12. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.