Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is absolute owner of the property situated at ½, Chelliamman Koil Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai. The petitioner purchased the property measuring 900 sq.ft. on 2.6.1995 from Mr.Uslam Sherif. At the time of purchase, it was vacant land with single phase E.B. Connection. 2. The petitioner constructed a building and thereafter applied for three phase power connection in the month of October, 1995. In pursuance to the payment advice, the petitioner remitted the charges for three phase connection. On receipt of necessary payment, three phase power connection was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner vide Consumer order No.078-55-54. 3. It is submitted that adjoining to the 900 sq.ft. building of the petitioner, Mrs. Vijaya has constructed a house in 400 sq.ft. along with ice factory. Mrs.Vijaya, being owner of the building had let out the premises to Mrs. Surya Kala for running ice factory with three phase separate power connection bearing consumer No.64-44-287. 4. It is submitted that theft of energy was committed by Mrs.Surya Kala, tenant of Mrs.Vijaya which resulted in demand of electricity charges and penalty. On failure of Mrs.Surya Kala to deposit the demanded amount, the service connection of No.64-44-287 was disconnected by the respondent. 5. On 28.02.2004, the impugned notice was served on the petitioner directing him to remit penalty charges of Rs.16,523/- (Rupees sixteen thousand five hundred and twenty three only) on or before 15.03.2004, i.e. the charges on account of theft of energy by the consumer having electricity service connection No.64-44-287. 6. The petitioner filed objection to the show cause notice wherein it was pointed that the petitioner had purchased the property on 02.06.1995 for which three phase new electricity connection was sanctioned to him on 24.11.1995 and therefore, he had no concern with consumer No.64-44-287. 7. The respondent rejected the explanation of the petitioner and issued the impugned notice demanding a sum of Rs.16,523/-(Rupees sixteen thousand five hundred and twenty three only). 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction, as the respondent had no right to claim the recovery of penalty imposed against Mrs.Vijaya or her tenant Mrs.Suryakala, from the petitioner,as he was neither tenant under Mrs.Vijaya nor had any concern with Consumer No.64-44-287. 9. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction, as the respondent had no right to claim the recovery of penalty imposed against Mrs.Vijaya or her tenant Mrs.Suryakala, from the petitioner,as he was neither tenant under Mrs.Vijaya nor had any concern with Consumer No.64-44-287. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also challenged the impugned order, on the ground that it is not open to the respondent to claim electricity charges from the subsequent purchaser of the property who was allowed a new service connection. 10. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board vs Hanuman Rice Mills & others (2010 AIOL 4357) wherein it has been laid down as under: "10. The appellant did not plead in its defence that any statutory rule or terms and conditions of supply, authorized it to demand the dues of previous owner, from the first respondent. Though the appellant contended in the written statement that the dues of Durga Rice Mills were transferred to the account of the first respondent, the appellant did not specify the statutory provision which enabled it to make such a claim. The decision in Paramount Polymers shows that such an enabling term was introduced in the terms and conditions of electricity supply in Haryana, only in the year 2001. The appellant did not demand the alleged arrears, when first respondent approached the appellant for electricity connection in its own name for the same premises and obtained it in the year 1991. More than three years thereafter, a demand was made by the appellant for the first time on 16.1.1995 alleging that there were electricity dues by the previous owner. In these circumstances the claim relating to the previous owner could not be enforced against the first respondent." 11. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent by contending that as per the terms of the supply, it is open to the respondent to claim arrears of the previous owner, from the purchaser of the house in terms of the regulation governing the terms of the supply. 12. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent by contending that as per the terms of the supply, it is open to the respondent to claim arrears of the previous owner, from the purchaser of the house in terms of the regulation governing the terms of the supply. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that as per Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply, it is open to the Board to refuse the electricity connection to intending consumers who has defaulted in payment of dues to the Board in respect of any other service connection held in his/her name. Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reads as under: "6.10 The Board will refuse to supply electricity to an intending consumer who has defaulted in payment of dues to the Board in respect of any other service connection held in his name. In case of services which have been disconnected/dismantled for non-payment of arrears and if the services are to be availed by other parties in the same premises either by purchase or transfer or in auction or on lease basis then in such cases the services will be effected only on clearance of the dues outstanding against such disconnected/ dismantled service by the intending consumers." 13. The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contention that the demand can be raised on the petitioner in view of Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions of the board, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others vs. DVS steels and Alloys Private Limited and others [ (2009)1 S.C.C. 210 ] wherein it has been held as under: "10. But the above legal position is not of any practical help to a purchaser of a premises. 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. But the above legal position is not of any practical help to a purchaser of a premises. 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. If the rules are silent, it can stipulate such terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper, to regulate its transactions and dealings. So long as such rules and regulations or the terms and conditions are not arbitrary and unreasonable, courts will not interfere with them. 11. A stipulation by the distributor that the dues in regard to the electricity supplied to the premises should be cleared before electricity supply is restored or a new connection is given to a premises, cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary. In the absence of such a stipulation, an unscrupulous consumer may commit defaults with impunity, and when the electricity supply is disconnected for non-payment, may sell away the property and move on to another property, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible for the distributor to recover the dues. Having regard to the very large number of consumers of electricity and the frequent moving or translocating of industrial, commercial and residential establishments, provisions similar to clause 4.3(g) and (h) of Electricity Supply Code are necessary to safeguard the interests of the distributor." 14. However, On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. 15. However, On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. 15. The petitioner is not one who has defaulted in payment of dues to the Board in respect of another service connection held in his name, nor it is a case where the petitioner seeking service connection in the premises from where the service connection has been disconnected, rather it is a case where the petitioner has been granted independent service connection independent of the service connection allotted to Mrs.Vijaya or her tenant. 16. The petitioner has no connection with the disconnected service connection of the ice factory under the consumer No. 64-44-287. 17. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others vs. DVS steels and Alloys Private Limited and others [supra] therefore, has no application to the facts of the present case. Whereas the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board vs Hanuman Rice Mills & others (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. 18. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondent to restore the electric power supply to L.T.No.078-55-54, the electricity connection of the petitioner. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.