By this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek quashing of communication dated 23.9.2006 of the respondent No. 3 declining to provide fresh electricity connection to the tea estate of the petitioners and further seek a direction to the respondents to provide fresh electricity connection to the said tea estate, i.e., Pathini Tea Estate in the district of Karimganj (Assam) without insisting on clearance of the previous dues of the earlier consumer/owner, Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd. 2. Facts of the case leading to the present litigation may be briefly noted. 3. Initially, the writ petition was filed and moved by Vijayshrte Industries Private Ltd. (Unit-Pathini Tea Estate) and its Managing Director Shri Devendra Kumar Mantri Subsequently, in terms of order dated 22.3.2007 passed in MC No. 3100/2007, petitioner No. 1 was substituted by D.M. Properties (P.) Ltd. Again., as per order of this court dated 28.2.3010 passed m MC No. 1066/2010, following change of name of the company from D.M. Properties (P.) Ltd. to Mantri Tea Company (P.) Ltd., which was approved by the competent authority leading to issuance of fresh certificate of incorporation, Mantri Tea Company (P.) Ltd. is now the petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, the present petition is being pursued by Mantri Tea Company (P.) Ltd. (Unit-Pathini Tea Estate) and its Managing Director Shri Devendra Kumar Mantri as the petitioners. 4. Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd., the erstwhile owner of Pathini Tea Estate was in liquidation and, in this connection, Company Petition No. 324 of 1991 was instituted in the Calcutta High Court. In the course of the said winding up proceeding, the properties and assets of Pathini Tea Estate were put up for sale by auction by the Official Liquidator appointed by the Calcutta High Court. One R.K. Fishing and Agro-based (P.) Ltd. submitted a bid of Rs.1.55 crores for purchase of the Pathini Tea Estate ('Tea Estate'). However, the said party defaulted in depositing the entire bid money. At this stage, the predecessor company, i.e., Vijayshree Industries (P.) Ltd. stepped in and being interested in venturing into, tea business, filed an application in the pending company petition before the Calcutta High Court, being Company Application No. 343/2006, and deposited the entire bid money of Rs. 1.55 crores to purchase the assets and properties of the tea estate in auction. 1.55 crores to purchase the assets and properties of the tea estate in auction. It is stated that representatives of the petitioners had inspected the tea estate and found that there was no electricity connection to the tea estate. The earlier connection given was disconnected since the year 2000 and dismantled by the Assam State Electricity Board. Calcutta High Court passed order dated 22.8.2006 confirming the sale of the assets and properties of the tea estate in favour of Vijayshree Industries Private Ltd. subject to deposit of a further sum of Rs. 2,20,000 on or before 28.8.2006 being the additional expenses incurred on account of securing the assets and properties of the tea estate. 5. Vijayshree Industries (P.) Ltd. deposited the aforesaid additional amount of Rs. 2,20,000 before the Official Liquidator on 23.8.2006. Thereafter, on completion of official formalities, possession of the tea estate was handed over to Vijayshree Industries (P.) Ltd. on 29.8.2006. Since then, Vijayshree Industries (P.) Ltd. and thereafter, Mantri Tea Company (P.) Ltd. are in physical possession of the assets and properties of the tea estate. 6. As per the minutes of handing over and taking over possession of the tea estate dated 29.8.2006, it was clarified by the Official Liquidator that all pre-liquidation claims would be invited by newspaper publication and settled by the Official Liquidator in accordance with law. 7. Electricity connection to the tea estate was disconnected by the Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) for non-payment of dues by the previous owner, i.e., Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Since electricity was necessary to run the tea estate, petitioners wrote to the authorities of the successor company, viz., Central Assam Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (CAEDCL), more particularly to the respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 30.8.2006 requesting the authority to provide HT and LT electricity connection to the tea estate. Respondent No. 3 was informed that petitioners had purchased the assets and properties of the tea estate which was previously owned by Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (in liquidation) on order passed by the Calcutta High Court in a company petition and that possession of the assets and properties of the tea estate was handed over to the petitioners by the Official Liquidator on 29.8.2006. However, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioners vide impugned communication dated 23.9.2006 declining to restore electricity connection or to provide fresh connection to the tea estate. However, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioners vide impugned communication dated 23.9.2006 declining to restore electricity connection or to provide fresh connection to the tea estate. It was stated that as per the terms and conditions of supply of power by ASEB, electrical connection to any premises which was disconnected due to default in payment of electricity bills cannot be restored or provided fresh connection unless the outstanding dues are cleared along with all statutory charges. 8. This was followed by a number of correspondences between the petitioners and the respondents but the stalemate continued. Ultimately, on a request made by the petitioners, respondent No. 4 furnished a certificate dated 20.10.2006 certifying that electricity connection to the tea estate was disconnected on 4.12.2000 due to non-payment of energy bill. The break-up of the outstanding dues as on 1.10.2006 was as follows : Principal -- Rs. 12,31,888 Surcharge -- Rs. 49,53,717 Total -- Rs. 61,85,605 9. As the respondents were not providing electricity connection to the tea estate, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above. 10. Contention of the petitioners is that petitioners had sought for fresh electricity connection and such connection cannot be declined on the ground of default in the payment of electricity dues by the previous owner. Petitioners being auction purchaser of the assets and properties of the tea estate, the arrear dues of the previous owner, whose default led to disconnection of electricity supply to the tea estate, cannot be realized from them. Respondents had to lodge their claim before the Official Liquidator since the company which was the previous owner of the tea estate had gone into liquidation and was facing a winding up proceeding. Alternatively, it is contended that the outstanding dues relate to a period prior to 4.12.2000, on which date electricity supply to the tea estate was disconnected. Therefore, such dues have now become time barred and cannot be recovered. 11. This court by order dated 8.11.2006 had admitted the writ petition for hearing and passed an interim order directing that fresh electricity connection be provided by the respondents to the petitioners as new registered owner of the tea estate without insisting on payment of arrears as per certificate dated 20.10.2006. It was, however, observed that such demand of arrears would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. It was, however, observed that such demand of arrears would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Liberty was also given to the respondents to move the appropriate forum including the Official Liquidator for settlement of the claim of outstanding electricity charges against Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd., the previous owner of the tea estate. 12. Respondents have filed a common affidavit. Stand taken is that as per provision of Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2004, the foremost condition of supply of electricity to new connection is to ensure that previous electricity dues are cleared. Unless the arrear dues of the tea estate along with all statutory charges are cleared, respondents cannot provide fresh electricity connection to the tea estate. Respondents are public utility service providers funded by public money and, therefore, cannot take undue advantage of the situation. The outstanding dues of the tea estate amounting to Rs.61,91,102.00 is the legitimate claim of the respondents. Contention of the petitioners that the outstanding dues of the previous owner are not recoverable from them has been disputed by the respondents, who have also taken the stand that bills were raised continuously against the tea estate claiming all outstanding dues. Copies of some of the bills have been annexed to the counter affidavit. Therefore, the arrear dues have not become time barred. Further, respondents had issued newspaper advertisement on 26.6.2006 in terms of Government decision dated 29.11.2004 informing all electricity consumers having outstanding dues to clear the said dues before transfer of the premises and also intimating the prospective buyers to satisfy themselves regarding clearance of electricity dues before taking over possession of such premises and that in the event of non-discharge of liability of electricity dues by the previous owner, the purchaser/lessee would be liable to clear the said dues before electricity connection is provided. 13. Petitioners have filed a detailed affidavit-in-reply. Besides reiterating the contentions advanced in the writ petition, the petitioners have further stated that the bills annexed to the counter affidavit of the respondents are not genuine as those are manufactured ones to show that respondents had been regularly raising bills for payment of the outstanding dues so as to ensure that the arrear dues can be presented as subsisting and have not become time barred under the law. In paragraph 8 of the reply affidavit, petitioners have given details to support their contention that the claims have become time barred under section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Petitioners have contended that since the claim of the respondents are more than 2 years old, those are not recoverable. Petitioners had sought for new electricity connection and not for restoration of the earlier connection which was in the name of Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Petitioners have also factually disputed that the bills raised by the respondents, which have otherwise been disputed as not genuine, had been served on the previous owner or the Official Liquidator. They have contended they cannot be termed as 'consumer' under section 2 (15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as electricity connection was yet to be provided. 14. Heard Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. 15. Mr. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the petitioners are auction purchaser of the property in question, they cannot be saddled with the dues of the previous owner. He submits that the earlier owner Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd. was a company in liquidation and in a winding up proceeding under the Companies Act before the Calcutta High Court, petitioners had purchased the assets and properties of the tea estate in auction, the sale of which was confirmed by the High Court. The Official Liquidator had clearly stated at the time of handing over possession of the tea estate that all pre-liquidation claims would be invited by newspaper publication and settled by the Official Liquidator in accordance with law. Therefore, question of recovery of arrear electricity dues of erstwhile owner from the petitioners does not arise. Petitioners have sought for fresh electricity connection and not for re-connection or transfer of connection. He further submits that the electricity dues of the previous owner related to a period prior to 4.12.2000 when electricity connection to the tea estate was disconnected. Therefore, such claim cannot be raised now as it has become time barred under section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. He further submits that the electricity dues of the previous owner related to a period prior to 4.12.2000 when electricity connection to the tea estate was disconnected. Therefore, such claim cannot be raised now as it has become time barred under section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Referring to Regulation 3.6.4 of the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2004, learned counsel submits that the dues of the earlier occupier relates to a period more than 2 years prior to the date of issuance of certificate of demand dated 20.10.2006 and, therefore, are not recoverable in law. He also contends that Central Assam Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (CAEDCL) is a successor company of Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) and as per the transfer scheme, since no suit or other proceeding for recovery of the amount in question was pending for recovery of the aforesaid amount on the date of coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003, such dues have also no legal sanctity now. Therefore, the dues of the previous owner cannot be recovered from the petitioners. In this connection, he has placed reliance on a decision of this court rendered in the case of Nanotech (P.) Ltd. and Others v. Assam State Electricity Board and Others, 2009 (2) GLT 212. Referring to various bills placed on record, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that those are not only not genuine but there is also no documentary evidence to show that such bills raised were in fact served continuously either at the registered office of the previous owner or served on the Official Liquidator. He has also contended that petitioners cannot be brought within the ambit of the definition of a 'consumer' as defined under section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003. He has placed reliance on a number of decisions which shall be referred to in the course of the judgment. 16. Opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that respondents have acted in accordance with law. All that the respondents are trying to ensure is that the earlier dues are paid before electricity connection is given to the tea estate. 16. Opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that respondents have acted in accordance with law. All that the respondents are trying to ensure is that the earlier dues are paid before electricity connection is given to the tea estate. It was the duty of the petitioners to have verified the outstanding dues of the tea estate by the previous owner and to have paid such dues before purchasing the same. He has placed reliance on the provision of regulation 3.6.4 of the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2004 to support his above contention. He submits that the said provision has been approved by a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Carbon Resources (P) Ltd. v. Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others, (2010) 5 GLR 29. Respondents had been regularly issuing bills to the tea estate demanding payment of the arrear dues. Therefore, the claim has not become time barred as per section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Referring to the contentions of the petitioners that the bills are not genuine and that those were not served, learned senior counsel submits that firstly, ASEB or CAEDCL are statutory bodies and question of manufacturing fake bills by a State instrumentality does not arise. Secondly, petitioners have raised controversial and disputed questions of fact as to whether the bills are genuine or not and whether those had been served or not. He contends that this court in a proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution of India may not enter into such disputed questions of fact, the determination of which would be essential to decide the issues raised in the writ petition. In the course of hearing, he has produced a numbers of bill books to show that bills were continuously raised. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 17. Submissions made have been considered. 18. In the course of hearing, he has produced a numbers of bill books to show that bills were continuously raised. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 17. Submissions made have been considered. 18. From an analysis of the pleadings and the submissions made, broadly two issues arise for consideration of the court, which are as under : (1) Whether the petitioners who had purchased the assets and properties of the tea estate from another company in liquidation in auction from the Official Liquidator in a winding up proceeding in court, would be liable to pay the outstanding electricity dues of the earlier owner? (2) Whether the outstanding electricity dues of the tea estate standing in the name of the earlier owner have become barred by limitation? 19. Before attempting to answer the above issues, a brief reference to some of the relevant legal provisions is considered necessary. 20. The Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and for taking measures conducive to development of electricity industry, promoting competition, rationalization of electricity tariff etc. The Act came into force on 10.6.2003. Section 2(15) defines 'consumer'. As per the said definition, 'consumer' means a person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or by the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under the Electricity Act, 2003. Thus, the statutory definition of 'consumer' is a person who is in receipt of supply of electricity. 'Person' has been defined under section 2(49) to include any company or body corporate or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not or artificial juridical person. 21. Section 43 deals with supply of electricity. It provides that every distribution licensee shall on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the application requiring such supply. As per the Explanation to the said section, the application would have to be in the appropriate form and complete in all respects. As per the Explanation to the said section, the application would have to be in the appropriate form and complete in all respects. Thus, under section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, every distribution licensee is under an obligation to supply electricity on an application made by the owner or the occupier of the premises within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the application subject to fulfilment of the necessary conditions. 22. Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for disconnection of supply in default of payment. As per sub-section (1) of the said section, where any person neglects to pay any due for supply of electricity, the licensee would have the right to cut off supply of electricity after giving him 15 days notice. Such disconnection will, however, be without prejudice to recover the dues. Sub-section (2) provides that no sum due from any 'consumer' under the said section shall be recoverable after a period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of electricity. A careful reading of the said section would reveal a subtle but significant distinction. While the first part deals with disconnection of electricity supply for default in the payment of dues, the second part imposes a time limit for recovery of such dues. While the first part deals with default by any 'person', the second part specifically deals with recovery from a 'consumer'. No sum due from a 'consumer' beyond two years is recoverable unless it can be shown that steps have been taken continuously to recover the dues. Barring the exception, the licensee is not entitled to cut off the supply of electricity after two years when the payment of electricity charges first became due. Thus, recovery can be made only from a 'consumer'that too within the period specified subject to the exception carved out. And 'consumer' means a person who is in receipt of supply of electricity, as per definition under the Electricity Act, 2003. 23. Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 has framed the Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2004. The said Regulations ('Assam Supply Code') have since been amended. And 'consumer' means a person who is in receipt of supply of electricity, as per definition under the Electricity Act, 2003. 23. Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 has framed the Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2004. The said Regulations ('Assam Supply Code') have since been amended. The Assam Supply Code deals with supply of electricity and other related matters. In the Assam Supply Code, as per regulation 1.3(vi), the term 'consumer' has been given an extended meaning beyond the meaning ascribed in the definition of the said term in the Electricity Act, 2003. In addition to the definition given in the Electricity Act, 2003, as per the definition in the Assam Supply Code, the term 'consumer' would also include persons who have applied for electricity connection or whose supply has not yet commenced even though connection has been provided. A conjoint reading of the definition of 'consumer' under the Electricity Act, 2003 and under the Assam Supply Code would show that there is an endeavour in the latter to expand the meaning of the term 'consumer' to bring in persons within its fold, thereby bringing into existence substantive obligations or disabilities on such persons, which is not intended or contemplated by the Electricity Act, 2003. The provisions of the Assam Supply Code cannot traverse beyond the Electricity Act, 2003 and those would have to be interpreted or understood keeping in view the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. 24. As per Regulation 3.6.4 of the Assam Supply Code, in case of a person occupying a new property, it will be the obligation of that person to check the bills for the previous months or in case of disconnected supply, the amount due as per the licensee's record immediately before occupation and ensure that all outstanding electricity dues as specified in the bills are duly paid up and discharged, subject to the bar of limitation as per sub-section (2) of section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. As discussed above, this provision will have to be interpreted and understood keeping in view the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly the provisions contained in sections 2(15), 43 and 56 (2) thereof, and not in isolation. As discussed above, this provision will have to be interpreted and understood keeping in view the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly the provisions contained in sections 2(15), 43 and 56 (2) thereof, and not in isolation. In Global Energy Ltd. and Another v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2009) 15 SCC 570 , where the constitutional validity of certain clauses of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Procedure, Terms and Conditions for Grant of Trading Licence and Other Related Matters) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006 was questioned, the Apex Court held that the regulation making power cannot be exercised so as to bring into existence substantive rights or obligations or disabilities which are not contemplated in terms of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that the power of the regulation making authority must be interpreted keeping in view the provisions of the said Act. 25. Regulation 4.2.2 of the Assam Supply Code deals with billing. Frequency of bills should preferably be one month, giving 15 days time for payment. Bills are required to be sent by post or delivered at the premises of the consumer. 26. Recovery of old dues is provided in regulation 4.3.3 of the Assam Supply Code which is similar to the provision contained in sub-section (2) of section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 27. As already noticed above, the previous owner of the tea estate, which defaulted in the payment of electricity dues, was a company in liquidation for which a winding up proceeding under the Companies Act, 1956 was going on in the Calcutta High Court. Official Liquidator was appointed by the High Court to sell the assets and properties of the tea estate in auction sale. Following the failure of the first party to pay the consideration money, petitioners had paid the entire consideration money of Rs. 1.55 crores with the Official Liquidator and thereafter also paid the additional amount of Rs.2,20,000 to the Official Liquidator on account of security expenses. The purchase of the tea estate by the petitioners was confirmed by the Calcutta High Court and on order of the High Court, physical possession of the assets and properties of the tea estate was handed over to the petitioners. The purchase of the tea estate by the petitioners was confirmed by the Calcutta High Court and on order of the High Court, physical possession of the assets and properties of the tea estate was handed over to the petitioners. At the time of handing over possession of the tea estate, the Official Liquidator had clarified that all the pre-liquidation claims would be invited by newspaper publication and settled by the Official Liquidator in accordance with law. After getting possession over the tea estate, petitioners applied for fresh electricity connection, 28. Respondents have been not able to show or produce any material indicating steps taken by them for recovery of dues from the previous owner of the tea estate. Respondents have also not been able to place any material on record to show that they had lodged claim before the Official Liquidator for realization of the dues in terms of order of this court dated 8.11.2006. Thus, no effective steps were taken for recovery of the arrear dues from the erstwhile owner i.e., the 'consumer'. 29. In the case of Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Another, (1995) 2 SCC 648 , the hon'ble Supreme Court examined the question as to whether the auction purchaser was liable to meet the liability of old consumer of electricity to the premises which was purchased by him in auction sale from the Bihar State Financial Corporation under section 29(1) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. That was a case under the old Electricity Act, 1910. After examining various aspects of the matter, the hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the premises came to be owned or occupied by the auction purchaser, when such purchaser seeks supply of electric energy, he cannot be called upon to clear the past arrear as a condition precedent to supply. What matters is the contract entered into by the erstwhile consumer with the supplier. Supplier cannot seek enforcement of contractual liability against third party. It was finally held that it is impossible to impose on the purchasers a liability which was not incurred by them. Auction purchasers cannot be consumers till a contract is entered into. 30. Similar issue cropped up in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. v. Gujarat Inns (P.) Ltd. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 587 . It was finally held that it is impossible to impose on the purchasers a liability which was not incurred by them. Auction purchasers cannot be consumers till a contract is entered into. 30. Similar issue cropped up in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. v. Gujarat Inns (P.) Ltd. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 587 . In that case, the two respondents were auction purchaser under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 in one case and in the other case, from the Official Liquidator in winding up proceeding under the Companies Act, 1956. The previous owners of the properties had defaulted in the payment of electricity dues. The dispute was whether the respondents should be held liable to pay the arrears which were outstanding against the previous owners. Referring to the judgment in Isha Marbles (supra), a three judges Bench of the hon'ble Supreme Court held that the two cases before it were cases of fresh connection. It was held that in case of a fresh connection though the premises are the same, the auction purchaser cannot be held liable to clear the arrears incurred by the previous owner in respect of power supply to the premises hi the absence of there being a specific statutory provision in that regard. 31. In Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others v. DVS Steels and Alloys (P.) Ltd. and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 210 , the question was whether the supplier can recover the electricity dues from the purchaser of a sub-divided plot. The hon'ble Apex Court held that supply of electricity by distributor to a consumer is "sale of goods". The distributor as the supplier and the owner/occupier of a premises with whom it entered into a contract for supply of electricity are the parties to the contract and transferee of the premises or a subsequent occupant of the premises with whom the supplier has no privity of contract cannot obviously be asked to pay the dues of his predecessor-in-title or possession, as the amount payable towards supply of electricity does not constitute a 'charge' on the premises. A purchaser of the premises cannot be foisted with the electricity dues of any previous occupant merely because he happens to be the current owner of the premises. A purchaser of the premises cannot be foisted with the electricity dues of any previous occupant merely because he happens to be the current owner of the premises. The supplier can neither file a suit nor initiate revenue recovery proceeding against the purchaser of the premises for the outstanding electricity dues of the vendor of the premises in the absence of any contract to the contrary. 32. The above issue again came up for consideration before the hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 145 . After referring to various previous judgments, the position was summarized by the Apex Court as under : "Electricity arrear do not constitute a charge over the property. Therefore, in general law, a transferee of the premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owner/occupier and that where the statutory rules or terms and condition of supply authorises the supplier to demand from the purchaser claiming reconnection or fresh connection of electricity, the earlier dues of the previous owner/occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the supplier can recover the arrears from the purchaser." 33. In Carbon Resources (P.) Ltd. (supra), a Division Bench of this court negatived the challenge to the validity of regulation 3.6.4 of the Assam Supply Code and held the conditions prescribed therein for providing electricity supply to a premises where electricity had been disconnected for non-payment of the dues to be justified. 34. However, the issue appears to have been finally settled by the hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Special Officer, Commerce, North Eastern Electricity Company of Orissa (NESCO) and Another v. M/s. Raghunath Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. and Another in Civil Appeal No. 7899/2012 disposed of on 9.11.2012 (MANU/SC/0962/2012). The hon'ble Supreme Court again considered the issue as to whether a company which purchased the property of another company under liquidation through auction is liable to pay the arrears of electricity dues outstanding against the erstwhile company. That was also a case where the moveable and immovable assets and properties of the factory belonging to the company in liquidation was purchased by the respondent company pursuant to order of the High Court in company proceeding under the Companies Act, 1956 on 'as is where is and whatever there is' basis. That was also a case where the moveable and immovable assets and properties of the factory belonging to the company in liquidation was purchased by the respondent company pursuant to order of the High Court in company proceeding under the Companies Act, 1956 on 'as is where is and whatever there is' basis. After referring to various provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004, the Apex Court held that it was a case of fresh connection and not for transfer of connection, respondent-company had applied for fresh connection for its unit after purchasing the same from the Official Liquidator. The arrears of electricity dues levied against the premises in question was against the erstwhile company. Sub-clause (10) of regulation 13 of the Orissa Supply Code, which is somewhat similar to Regulation 3.6.4 of the Assam Supply Code, was examined and explained by the Apex Court to hold that the said clause applies to a request for transfer of service connection but not to a fresh connection. In respect of requirement of payment of other dues before processing electricity connection, it was held that such dues does not mean and were not meant to convey that a new applicant for fresh connection shall pay arrears of electricity dues or other dues for the same premises which were payable by the earlier consumer. Other dues has been explained to mean security and other charges payable for a new connection in terms of the conditions of supply but not the, arrears of electricity dues payable by earlier consumer who was in default. Finally, having regard to the fact that respondent company had purchased the premises under court auction sale from the Official Liquidator, it was held that it was a request for fresh connection and not for transfer of connection from the previous owner. The decision of the High Court directing the supplier to provide electricity to the unit of the respondent company was accordingly upheld by the Apex Court. 35. I am of the opinion that the facts of the present case are substantially identical with the facts of the above case and, therefore, the present case would stand covered by the ratio of the above judgment. In view of the above judgment, the decision in Carbon Resources (P.) Ltd. (supra) can be of no assistance to the respondents. 36. I am of the opinion that the facts of the present case are substantially identical with the facts of the above case and, therefore, the present case would stand covered by the ratio of the above judgment. In view of the above judgment, the decision in Carbon Resources (P.) Ltd. (supra) can be of no assistance to the respondents. 36. In view of the above deliberation and the case laws discussed, I am of the considered view that the requirement of regulation 3.6.4 of the Assam Supply Code would not he applicable to an auction purchaser of a property, earlier belonging to a company in liquidation having arrear electricity dues, from the Official Liquidator on order of the High Court in a winding up proceeding. Having held so, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition and to make the interim order dated 8.11.2006 directing the respondents to provide fresh electricity connection to the tea estate absolute. 37. Since the case is being decided on the first issue, deliberation and decision on the second issue is considered not necessary. . 38. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. 39. However, there shall be no order as to cost. ____________