JUDGMENT : K. Kannan, J. The revision petition is by the Electricity Board against a direction given by the Recovery Officer to the Board to issue an electricity connection to an Auction Purchaser for recovery of amounts due to a Bank in the recovery proceedings before the DRT. The dues of the defaulter appears to have been to the tune of Rs. 79,680/-. The electricity connection is against the direction given by the Recovery Officer for grant of electricity connection. It appears that this Court had dismissed the revision petition filed by the Electricity Board and it was taken in special leave to the Supreme Court which has remanded the case for consideration of the legal position involved of whether the Electricity Board could be compelled to give electricity connection in spite of arrears of electricity charges by the previous owner. The learned counsel for the Electricity Board would argue that the Recovery Officer has no legal competency to issue directions to the Electricity Board to issue service connection. The counsel argues that as per Sections 25 to 28 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Act, he (Recovery Officer) has no power for such a direction. The counsel would also refer me to intra-departmental instructions that provide that no electricity connection will be issued to any person, who has defaulted in payment of electricity charges nor will the Board entertain any change of name of the consumer, if there are outstanding dues payable by the existing consumer. 2. These submissions are countered by the counsel for the respondent pointing out to a decision squarely on the point in Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Hanuman Rice Mills and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 145 , that held that in the absence of statutory rules or regulations, there can be no duty for a purchaser to be proceeded against for electricity dues payable by the original consumer. The case was dealt with in a situation of liability which was sought to be fastened on an Auction Purchaser and the Court held that the demand of arrears of a previous occupier made three years after giving electricity connection cannot be enforced against an Auction Purchaser. The Court also observed that the electricity dues do not constitute a statutory charge to be enforced against the property in the hands of the purchaser. The Court also observed that the electricity dues do not constitute a statutory charge to be enforced against the property in the hands of the purchaser. It concluded that an attempt to fasten liability on a third party, who is an Auction Purchaser and who was in no way connected with the previous owner/occupier could not be saddled with a liability of a previous owner in the absence of any agreement between the Auction Purchaser and the electricity supplier. The Court ultimately, therefore, held that the recoveries cannot be enforced against the purchaser. If the legal position could be discerned through the judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to above, that there existed no liability to an Auction Purchaser, then a direction by the Recovery Officer to grant electricity connection is only a direction in the manner of securing to the purchaser the benefits of such purchase. Of what consequence the disobedience would entail is a different matter, but I find nothing wrong about public officer giving a direction which is not opposed to law, but which, on the other hand, makes a correct understanding of the statement of law exposited above. I find no reason to interfere with the same. The revision petition is dismissed.