JUDGMENT (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Heard Sri D.D. Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyay, Counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought the following relief: - I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/letter dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition), issued by respondent No.3. II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith install a new/fresh electricity connection in the property of petitioner in pursuance of application made by the petitioner after fulfilling the required formalities. III. To issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IV. Award cost of the petition. 3. Briefly stated he facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner had purchased a land situated at Khasra Nos. 85 and 87, situated in Mauza Shyampur, Pargana Parwadoon, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun from M/s Bhardwaj Heavy Bridge Ltd. vide registered sale-deed dated 15.7.2004. 4. After purchasing the land in question the petitioner applied for a new electricity connection of two K.V. before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 vide impugned order/letter dated 30.5.2011, has rejected the said application of the petitioner on the ground that the premises for which the petitioner has applied for new connection, an electricity connection No. RK-6-2205/022662 was already installed in the name of Sri K.K. Bhardwaj and a sum of Rs. 76,220/- is outstanding towards the said connection therefore the petitioner must clear the said outstanding dues before installation of new electricity connection. 5. The petitioner’s case is that the relationship between the Electricity Department and the Consumer is purely contractual and admittedly the petitioner had not consumed the electricity for which there is alleged outstanding dues hence the same cannot be realized from the petitioner. Further Sri K.K. Bhardwaj has not sold the property to the petitioner and there is no outstanding dues against M/s Bhardwaj Heavy Bridge Ltd., who had sold the property to the petitioner. 6. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner and the facts pleaded in the writ petition have been reiterated therein. Further Sri K.K. Bhardwaj has not sold the property to the petitioner and there is no outstanding dues against M/s Bhardwaj Heavy Bridge Ltd., who had sold the property to the petitioner. 6. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner and the facts pleaded in the writ petition have been reiterated therein. In para-4 of the supplementary affidavit it is stated that the electricity connection was installed in the name of Sri K.K. Bhardwaj and the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay the dues and he is entitled for a new electricity connection. 7. The respondents resisted the writ petition by filing counter affidavit and in para-5 of he counter affidavit it is stated that the premises which was purchased by the petitioner from M/s Bhardwaj Heavy Bridge Ltd through its Managing Director Sri V.K. Bhardwaj in the year 2004, there was a commercial electricity connection No. RK-6 2205/022662 of 7.5 K.W. on the name of Sri K.K. Bhardwaj S/o Sri V.D. Bhardwaj. The said consumer did not pay the electricity charges as such the electricity connection was disconnected. In para-6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission has framed the regulations namely, Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Release of New LT Connections, Enhancement and Reduction of Loads) Regulations, 2007 and according to Regulations 3 and 4 a new connection cannot be granted to the petitioner without clearing the dues on the old connection installed in the same premises. 8. The respondents also filed supplementary counter affidavit and reiterated the facts mentioned in the counter affidavit. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that the outstanding dues was relating to electricity connection of Sri K.K. Bhardwaj and the petitioner has not consumed the electricity of outstanding dues, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Isha Marbles versus Bihar State Electricity Board and another and in other connected civil appeals, reported in (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 648, and the judgment of this Court rendered in M/s Shree Prabhu Sharan Ispat Pvt. Ltd. versus Uttaranchal Power Corporation and another, reported in 2008 (1) U.D. 100, the petitioner cannot be compelled to clear the outstanding dues and he is entitled to get new electricity connection. 10. 10. On the other hand learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents has submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the terms and conditions of Regulation No.3 (2) of Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Release of New LT Connections, Enhancement and Reduction of Loads) Regulations, 2007 for getting new electricity connection hence he has rightly been denied the new electricity connection. The learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the case of Haryana State Electricity Board Versus Hanuman Rice Mills Dhanauri and others, reported in (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 145, wherein it has been held in para–12, ‘when the purchaser of a premises approaches the distributor seeking a fresh electricity connection to its premises for supply of electricity, the distributor can stipulate the terms subject to which it would supply electricity. It can stipulate as one of the conditions for supply, that the arrears due in regard to the supply of electricity made to the premises when it was in the occupation of the previous owner/occupant, should be cleared before the electricity supply is restored to the premises or a fresh connection is provided to the premises. If any statutory rules govern the conditions relating to sanction of a connection or supply of electricity, the distributor can insist upon fulfillment of the requirements of such rules and regulations.’ 11. This fact is not disputed that the previous owner of the property in question was having electricity connection on the premises and dues are against the said connection. 12. So far as the judgment of Isha Marbles (Supra) is concerned, in that case the Apex Court has held that in absence of statutory rules/regulations the purchaser of the premises cannot be compelled to deposit the dues of previous electricity connection, but here the rules/regulations have been framed, hence the facts of the cited case are not applicable to the facts of the case at hand. 13. The facts of the second cited case of M/s Shree Prabhu Sharan Ispat Pvt. Ltd (Supra), are also not applicable to the facts of the case at hand, since that case was decided by this court prior to framing of Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Release of New LT Connections, Enhancement and Reduction of Loads) Regulations, 2007. 14. 13. The facts of the second cited case of M/s Shree Prabhu Sharan Ispat Pvt. Ltd (Supra), are also not applicable to the facts of the case at hand, since that case was decided by this court prior to framing of Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Release of New LT Connections, Enhancement and Reduction of Loads) Regulations, 2007. 14. Since now the Uttarakhand Power Corporation has framed Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Release of New LT Connections, Enhancement and Reduction of Loads) Regulations, 2007 and the petitioner has not complied with the directions contained in part (2) of Regulation 3 of the said Regulations 2007, therefore, the respondents can insist upon fulfillment of the requirement of the said Regulations. In view of discussions made above the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. The writ petition is dismissed.