Judgment :- 1. The first petitioner is said to be a registered partnership firm of which the 2nd petitioner is one of the partners. Four partners of the 1st petitioner jointly made an offer of Rs.2,02,00,000/- Rupees Two Crores and Two Lakhs only) in response to a public notice of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, for short ‘DRT’, published in the Deccan Herald newspaper dt. 22/2/2004, Annex.A, inviting bids for sale by public auction of the following vacant lands: (1) 1 acre 32 guntas forming part of Sy.No.45/1A and 45/1B, re-numbered as 45/1B; (2) 1 acre 35 guntas including karab in Sy.No.46, re-numbered as Sy.No.46/2. both the Geddalahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, belonging to M/s Nandi Re-rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., for short ’NRMPL’. The Recovery Officer of the DRT having noticed that the petitioners bid was the highest, confirmed the auction sale of the said properties in their favour, followed by issue of a sale certificate dt. 19/4/2004 duly registered on 8/6/2004. Annex.B. Petitioners applied for and obtained an order dt. 6/4/2005, Annex.C. of the Deputy Commissioner to divert the lands for use from industrial to residential purpose. Petitioners’ application to the respondent-Bangalore Electric Supply Co. Ltd., for short ‘BESCOM’, for issue of a no objection certificate, when declined by letter dt. 27/4/2005, were called upon to pay all the arrears due from NRMPL. The developers of the said land by name M/s. Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd., addressed a letter dt. 8/11/2005, Annex.G. stating that they were not liable to pay the arrears to BESCOM. The General Manager, BESCOM by letter dt. 1/12/2005 Annex.H. addressed to the General Manager, Electrical (C. O. & M), informed that the Board had a right to claim the past arrears before arranging supply of power. BESCOM on information of the auction purchase, addressed a letter dt. 26/12/2005, Annex.K. to the Recovery Officer requesting payment of dues of NRMPL, from out of the auction purchase consideration, which was rejected by order dt. 13/4/2006, on the premise the BESCOM was not a secured creditor. Thereafterwards BESCOM addressed a letter dt. 6/1/2006, Annex.L. to M/s. Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd., demanding payment of arrears due from NRMPL which was responded to by letters, Annexures M, N & P, denying the liability. Hence this petition filed on 25/4/2006. 2. I.A. No.1/06 filed by the petitioners was disposed of by order dt. Thereafterwards BESCOM addressed a letter dt. 6/1/2006, Annex.L. to M/s. Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd., demanding payment of arrears due from NRMPL which was responded to by letters, Annexures M, N & P, denying the liability. Hence this petition filed on 25/4/2006. 2. I.A. No.1/06 filed by the petitioners was disposed of by order dt. 11/7/2006 directing the respondents not to enforce the recovery of arrears of Rs.1,77,95,017/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Seven Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand and Seventeen only) subject to the petitioners depositing Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs only) within the jurisdictional local office of BESCOM, who was inturn directed to supply electricity, within 4 weeks thereof and collect legitimate charges for such supply, subject to the result of the petition. 3. Petition is opposed by filing statement of objections dt. 29/5/2006, to which the petitioners have filed a rejoinder dt. 22/6/2006. Respondents filed additional statement of objections on 11/3/2009 and a further statement of objections dt. 8/2/2011 to the 2nd amendment to the writ petition and additional statement of objections dt. 14/2/2011, to which petitioners have filed a rejoinder dt. 25/3/2011. 4. The plea of the respondent, in a nutshell, is that NRMPL and the Mysore State Electricity Board, for short ’MSEB’, entered into an agreement for power supply on 26/8/1972 pursuant to the application dt. 25/2/1972 of NRMPL. On an application for additional power supply on 31/8/1982 of NRMPL, resulted in a further agreement of even date, for additional power supply, followed by a sanction accorded on 18/8/1983. The Karnataka Electricity Board, for short ’KEB’, addressed a letter dt. 2/8/1993 to NRMPL alleging theft of electricity and back billing charges of Rs.1,59,05,310.10 (Rupees One Crore Fifty Nine Lakhs Five Thousand Three Hundred & Ten and Paise Ten only), which when called in question in an appeal filed by NRMPL, was confirmed by order dt. 16/11/1993 while dismissing the appeal. The KEB issued Form Nos. A & B, Annexures R III and R IV to the statement of objections dt. 29/5/2006, for recovery of dues under the Karnataka Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1976 and the Karnataka Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Rules, 1978. 16/11/1993 while dismissing the appeal. The KEB issued Form Nos. A & B, Annexures R III and R IV to the statement of objections dt. 29/5/2006, for recovery of dues under the Karnataka Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1976 and the Karnataka Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Rules, 1978. On 19/11/1993, the KEB issued a notice to NRMPL calling upon it to pay the electricity dues within 3 months failing which the power supply agreement in respect of RR No.IE-HP4 would be deemed terminated without prejudice to the rights of KEB to recover all dues in terms of the agreement of supply. Annex.R-V to the additional statement of objections dt. 14/2/2011. The Executive Engineer (Electrical), East Division, KEB, addressed a letter dt. 3/2/1994 to the Chief Engineer (Electrical), KEB Bangalore Zone, Annex.R6 to the additional statement of objections dt. 14/2/2011, informing that NRMPL though filed a second appeal, failed to comply with the order of the First Appellate authority and hence there was justification to issue the notice of termination of agreement. It appears, NRMPL having filed W.P.9398/90 calling in question the demand and the order in appeal, was dismissed by order dt. 29/10/1996, reserving liberty to prefer a second appeal and seek stay of recovery of the dues, subject to furnishing a bank guarantee and a further direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within 6 weeks. 5. Learned Counsel for the parties reiterate the contentions advanced in the pleadings, while making reference to the provisions of the following statutes and reported opinions: Statutes referred to: (1) Regulation 4.34 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988; (2) Sec.49 and 79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948; (3) Sec.58 of the Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999; (4) Clauses 2.50; 49.00 and 4.12(v) of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply & Distribution) Code 2000-2001 with effect from 29/3/2001; and (5) Sec.56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (6) Rule 53(d) under Part-III Schedule-II of Procedure for Recovery of Tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (7) Sec.55(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Authorities relied upon: (1) M/s. Agarwal Strips Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy General Manager (Elect.) CESCO, Angul Electrical Division, Angul & Ors.(AIR 2011 ORISSA 42). (2) Special Officer (Commerce) NESCO & Anr. Vs. M/s. Raghunath Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (AIR 2011 ORISSA 52). (2) Special Officer (Commerce) NESCO & Anr. Vs. M/s. Raghunath Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (AIR 2011 ORISSA 52). (3) Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri & Others ( (2010) 9 SCC 145 ). (4) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd. & Others ( (2004) 3 SCC 587 ). (5) Mahila Kamla Dubey vs. Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Mandal, Gwalior & Others (AIR 2010 MADHYA PRADESH 105 (GWALIOR BENCH)). (6) Unreported opinion in W.P.No.5486/99 in M/s. Parwati Cotton Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Karnataka Electricity Board & Others DD. 9/10/2000 (Annex.J) (7) W.A. No.2324/99 in M/s. Parwati Cotton Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Karnataka Electricity Board & Others. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the demand impugned, the core question for decision making is, “Whether the respondent-BESCOM, in law, is entitled to recover Rs.1,77,95,017/- from the petitioner by resorting to Clause 4.12(v) of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply & Distribution) Code 2000-2001?” 7. Indisputably NRMPL, an industrial undertaking carrying on the business of manufacture of steel, applied for an secured supply of electricity from the erstwhile MSEB in the year 1972 and additional power in the year 1982-83. The allegation of theft of electricity leading to back billing charges of Rs.1,59,05,310.10/- was made by letter dt. 2/8/1993 of KEB, subject matter of a first appeal, which was dismissed on 16/11/1993 and W.P.9398/90 filed by NRMPL was dismissed reserving liberty to file a second appeal to be disposed of within 6 weeks, by order dt. 29/10/1996 of this court. The KEB invoked its jurisdiction under the Karnataka Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1976, for short ‘Recovery of Dues Act’, and Karnataka Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Rules, 1978, for short ‘Recovery of Dues Rules’, by issuing Form Nos. A & B, Annexures R-III and R-IV during the year 1999. Form No. B under Rule 3 is the prescribed form of the bill for dues payable to the Board, to be read with Sec.4 of the ‘Recovery of Dues Act’ investing a jurisdiction in the KEB to issue in the prescribed form the notice of demand when dues are not paid by the debtor by the date specified. Form No. B under Rule 3 is the prescribed form of the bill for dues payable to the Board, to be read with Sec.4 of the ‘Recovery of Dues Act’ investing a jurisdiction in the KEB to issue in the prescribed form the notice of demand when dues are not paid by the debtor by the date specified. The failure on the part of the debtor to make payment under the bill, the KEB is empowered by Sec.6 of the ‘Recovery of Dues Act’ to recover the same as an arrears of land revenue, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or instrument or agreement and for which purpose the KEB is required to forward to the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction, a certificate under his signature, in the prescribed form, stating the amount and details of payment and the name and description of the debtor in default, whereafterwards the Deputy Commissioner shall proceed to recover from the debtor, the amount of the demand as if it were arrears of land revenue. Though the KEB issued the demand notices by exercising a jurisdiction vested in it, nevertheless did not issue the certificate Form ‘C’ under Sec.6 r/w Rule 5, to recover the dues as an arrears of land revenue. The pleadings do not disclose the reasons for the KEB to abandon its right to recover the huge sum of money from the defaulter. 8. It is not disputed that electrical energy was supplied for a manufacturing activity carried on inside a premise being an industrial shed by use of machinery embedded to the lands in question. It cannot be disputed that the ‘Recovery of Dues Act’ was promulgated for “expeditious recovery” of certain sums due to the KEB and came into force with effect from 23/6/1976 whereunder the word ‘debtor’ is defined as, a person by whom dues are payable. In the absence of a plausible explanation by the KEB for not having pursued the recovery of the dues from NRMPL, consequent upon the issue of Forms A & B, supra, it cannot but be said that the KEB had abandoned its right to recover the money under the Act & Rules. (Emphasis supplied) 9. The KEB Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988, brought into force with effect from 8/12/1988, was in exercise of powers conferred by Sec.49 and 79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. (Emphasis supplied) 9. The KEB Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988, brought into force with effect from 8/12/1988, was in exercise of powers conferred by Sec.49 and 79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Regulation 4.34 reads thus: “4.34 If any person desires to have electricity for a premises for which the power supply agreement has been terminated (whether the service line is dismantled or not), he will be treated as a fresh consumer and the Board reserves the right to collect the outstanding arrears from such person before connection is given.” 10. The Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, was enacted to provide for the constitution of Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission) for the State of Karnataka and to provide for restructuring of the electricity industry in the State, the corporatisation of KEB and the rationalisation of the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity in the State and to provide avenues for participation of private sector entrepreneurs in the electricity industry in the State and generally for taking measures conducive to the development and management of the electricity industry in the State in an efficient, economic and competitive manner so as to provide reliable quality power and protect the interest of the consumer, including vesting in the Commissioner the powers to, regulate the activities of the power sector in the State and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 11. The principles governing supply of electricity by the KEB to persons other than licensees under Sec.49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, were governed by the KEB Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988, framed by the erstwhile KEB in exercise of its powers under Sec.79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. On the coming into force of the Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, Clause (f) of Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.58 provides that in respect of matters provided interalia under sec.49 and 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the provisions of the said Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, would not apply to the extent that specific provisions have been made in the Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999. Sec.11 of the Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, vests the Commission with the powers to regulate interalia the distribution, supply and utilization of electricity to issue license and determine the conditions to be included in the license, to regulate the working of the licensees and to set appropriate codes of conduct and standards for the electricity industry in the State and the standards of service to the consumers by licensees. Sec.19 of the At provides that the licenses shall specify the terms and conditions under which the supply of energy is to be made while Regulation 22 of the KERC (License) Regulation, 2000, provides that the licensee shall adopt interalia the model conditions for supply of power and such other codes and standards as may be framed by the Commission from time to time. The Commission approved the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply & Distribution) Code, 2000-2001, which came into force with effect from 29/3/2001. Clause 49 of the Code 2000-2001 provides for repeal and savings whereunder the KEB Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988, with all its up to date amendments stood repealed, though applicable in respect of period prior to the date of coming into force of the Code 2000-2001. 12. Since the KEB did not exert itself under Regulation 4.34 of the KEB Electricity Supply Regulation, 1988, to recover the moneys due from NRMPL, in the light of Clause 49 of the Code 2000-2001, the right to recover the money under Regulation 4.34 of the Regulations, 1988, is no more available with the KEB. 13. Clause 4.12(v) of the Code 2000-2001 reads thus: 4.12 General (i) xxx (ii) xxx (iii) xxx (iv) xxx (v) If any person desires to have electricity for a premises for which the power supply agreement has been terminated (whether the service line is dismantled or not) he will be treated as a fresh consumer and the licensee shall collect the outstanding arrears in respect of the said premises from such person before connection is given. (vi) xxx (vii) xxx (viii) xxx (ix) xxx (x) xxx (xi) xxx 14. (vi) xxx (vii) xxx (viii) xxx (ix) xxx (x) xxx (xi) xxx 14. The thrust of the case of the respondent, KEB, is recovery of arrears of NRMPL from the auction purchaser of vacant lands invoking Clause 4.12(v) of the Code of 2000-2001 r/w the definition of the word ‘premises’ under Clause 2.5 of the Code, meaning the area/portion of the building/shed/field etc., for which the electric connection has been applied for or sanctioned for a single Consumer. 15. It is no doubt true that in Haryana State Electricity Board’s case, the Apex Court having regard to the observation in Isha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Board ( (1995) 2 SCC 648 ), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Paramount Polymers (P) Ltd. ((2006) 13 SCC 101) as also Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s. DVS Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ( (2009) 1 SCC 210 ), summarized the position thus: “12. The position therefore may be summarized thus: (i) Electricity arrears do not constitute a charge over the property. Therefore in general law, a transferee of a premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owner/occupier. (ii) Where the statutory rules or terms and conditions of supply which are statutory in character, authorize the supplier of electricity to demand from the purchaser of a property claiming reconnection or fresh connection of electricity, the arrears due by the previous owner/occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the supplier can recover the arrears from a purchaser. 16. In Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd. & Others, a larger bench of 3 judges of the Apex Court, opined thus: “In our opinion, the present two cases are cases of fresh connection. The learned Counsel for the respondents (auction-purchasers) have stated that they have taken fresh connections and they have no objection if their connections are treated as fresh connections given on the dates on which the supply of electricity was restored to the premises. We are clearly of the opinion that in case of a fresh connection though the premises are the same, the auction-purchasers cannot be held liable to clear the arrears incurred by the previous owners in respect of power supply to the premises in the absence of there being a specific statutory provision in that regard. We are clearly of the opinion that in case of a fresh connection though the premises are the same, the auction-purchasers cannot be held liable to clear the arrears incurred by the previous owners in respect of power supply to the premises in the absence of there being a specific statutory provision in that regard. Though we find some merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant calling for reconsideration of the wide propositions of law laid down in Isha Marbles Case we think the present one is not a case for such exercise. We leave the plea open for consideration in an appropriate case.” 17. The decision of the Madhya Pradesh Gwalior Bench in Mahila Kamla Dubey’s case is following the decisions of the Apex Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and in Isha Marble’s case. 18. In Parvati Cotton Co. Pvt. Ltd’s. case, a learned Single Judge having regard to Regulation 4.34 under the Karnataka Electricity Board Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988, enabling the Board to reserve a right to collect the outstanding arrears from a person who desires to have electricity for a premises for which power supply agreement has been terminated (whether the service line is dismantled or not) and treated as a fresh consumer, before connection is given, declined to interfere with the demand made by the Board. That order when carried in W.A.2324/99, it is said, was confirmed. 19. The facts of this case clearly discloses a departure from the facts of the cases referred to in the reported opinions and therefore the opinions have no bearing on the decision making in the present case. Petitioners purchased the immovable properties in question, being vacant lands, in a public auction held by the recovery officer of the DRT, for recovery of moneys due to financial institutions, by NRMPL. The public notice-Annex.A does not advert to the alleged claim of the respondent-BESCOM, as arrears due from the premises being vacant land. Respondent-BESCOM, for reasons not forthcoming, did neither answer nor oppose the public notice or reserve its right to recover the arrears from NRMPL. Though NRMPL had set up an industrial unit being plant and machinery on the lands in question to which power was supplied by KEB, nevertheless on the date of auction notification-Annex.A (22/2/2004), the building and machinery, much less power connection were unavailable. Though NRMPL had set up an industrial unit being plant and machinery on the lands in question to which power was supplied by KEB, nevertheless on the date of auction notification-Annex.A (22/2/2004), the building and machinery, much less power connection were unavailable. In other words, there was no power connection to the vacant lands in question, so as to fall within the definition of the word ‘premises’, supra, entitling the KEB/BESCOM to call upon the auction purchasers to pay up the dues of NRMPL before the supply of electric energy by invoking Clause 4.12(v) of the Code 2000-2001. 20. It is needless to state that the DRT being a statutory authority functioning under the Recovery of Debt Due To Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, having invoked Rule 54 of Schedule-II to the Income Tax Act, 1961. issued the proclamation of sale-Annex.A of the immovable property being vacant lands. 21. The rights and liabilities of the petitioners-auction purchasers as well as the seller namely, DRT, a statutory authority in the matter of sale of immovable property by public auction, are governed by Sec.55(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which reads thus: “55. Rights & Liabilities of Buyer and Seller- In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer and the seller of immovable property respectively are subject to the liabilities, and have the rights, mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property sold: (1) The seller is bound- (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) xxx (e) xxx (f) xxx (g) to pay all public charges and rent accrued due in respect of property up to the date of the sale, the interest to all incumbrances on such property due on such date, and, except where the property is sold subject to incumbrances, to discharge all incumbrances on the property then existing. 22. Thus in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer and seller of immovable property respectively, are subjected to the liabilities and the seller is bound to pay all public charges and rent accrued due in respect of the property up to the date of sale together with interest and all incumbrances on such property due on such date, except where the property is sold subject to incumbrances, to discharge all incumbrances on the property then existing. The public notice-Annex.A inviting tenders for the sale of the immovable properties in question by the DRT does not disclose any incumbrance of the nature claimed by the respondent-BESCOM. In other words, petitioners were not put on notice over the claim of the respondent-BESCOM for recovery of arrears due from NRMPL. Petitioners having not purchased the going industrial concern of NRMPL, cannot be mulked with the liability to pay its dues to the respondent-BESCOM. In that view of the matter, the demand of the respondent-BESCOM calling upon the petitioners to clear the arrears due in respect of NRMPL, is arbitrary and illegal. 23. The parliament, having noticed that the Electricity Supply Industry in India was governed by 3 enactments namely, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998, there arose a need for a new self-contained comprehensive legislation, keeping in mind the policy to encourage private sector participation in generation, transmission and distribution, as well as the objectives of distancing the regulatory responsibilities from the Government to the Regulatory Commissions and harmonizing the provisions of the aforesaid Acts, accordingly engrafted the Electricity Act, 2003. Sec.56(1) & (2) of the Electricity Act 2003, reads thus: “56. Sec.56(1) & (2) of the Electricity Act 2003, reads thus: “56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment- (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due form him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer: Provided that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off if such person deposits, under protest,- (a) an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or (b) the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months. whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.” 24. Applying the aforesaid provisions, NRMPL having neglected to pay the charges for supply of electricity by the erstwhile KEB, on the coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003,it was for the BESCOM to have issued 15 clear days notice in writing to NRMPL to recover its dues. Applying the aforesaid provisions, NRMPL having neglected to pay the charges for supply of electricity by the erstwhile KEB, on the coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003,it was for the BESCOM to have issued 15 clear days notice in writing to NRMPL to recover its dues. The non-obstante clause in Sub-sec.(2) makes it all the more mandatory for BESCOM to have recovered the moneys due from NRMPL within the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due or in the two years from the date of coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003, i.e., 10/6/2003. It is not the case of the respondent-BESCOM that the amount should as dues payable by the NRMPL was shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supply and the supply of electricity was not cut off. In other words, assuming the action to recover the moneys from NRMPL pursuant to the issue of notice in Form No. B under the KEB Recovery of Dues Act, 1976, was available to BESCOM on the coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003, then too the recovery should have been effected within 2 years there from. This is also indicative of the fact that BESCOM could not have invoked Clause 4.12(v) of the Code 2000-2001 to recover the moneys due from NRMPL from the purchaser of the immovable property belonging to the debtor by insisting upon such payments before supply of electricity to the premises in question. Thus the impugned demand calling upon the petitioners to pay the charges due from NRMPL, cannot but be characterized as illegal. 25. The challenge to the vires of Regulation 4.34 of the Karnataka Board Electricity Supply Regulation, 1988, and Regulation 4.12(v) of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission Electricity Supply & Distribution Code, 2000-2001, and Regulation 4.09(v) of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of the Distribution Licenses, as unenforceable against the petitioners, is not pressed. In the result, petition is allowed. The demand for Rs.1,77,95,017/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Seven Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand and Seventeen only) under letter dt. 27/4/2005-Annex.F of the 3rd respondent-BESCOM, is declared as illegal and void. A writ of mandamus shall ensue to the respondent-BESCOM to supply electric energy to the petitioner’s premises, subject to usual terms and conditions including deposit as a fresh connection. The demand for Rs.1,77,95,017/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Seven Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand and Seventeen only) under letter dt. 27/4/2005-Annex.F of the 3rd respondent-BESCOM, is declared as illegal and void. A writ of mandamus shall ensue to the respondent-BESCOM to supply electric energy to the petitioner’s premises, subject to usual terms and conditions including deposit as a fresh connection. The amount of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs only) in deposit with the 3rd respondent-BESCOM is directed to be refunded to the petitioners, since it represents a part of the arrears demanded under the letter dt. 27/4/2005.