ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board, now the Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited, to grant new electric domestic connection to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner claims to have become the owner of the property on the basis of a compromise petition filed in a title suit for partition of property between the father of the petitioner and others, pursuant to which a final decree was drawn up on 25.7.2003. Subsequently the father of the petitioner died in the month of July, 2006. After the death of the father of the petitioner the petitioner decided to shift to her own house along with her children and accordingly applied for a domestic electric connection before the respondent Board on 2.3.2012 having completed all the formalities on her account. The petitioner having not got the electric connection has approached this Court. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board the stand taken is that the premises were inspected by the Junior Electrical Engineer who informed that on the said premises there was outstanding due in the name of Shankar Rai having Account No.187973 under LTIS category of service which stood disconnected on account of outstanding energy dues of Rs.2,03,473/-, in support of which the last bill dated 4.3.2007 showing disconnection has been enclosed as Annexure-R/B to the counter affidavit. It is thus the stand of the Board that in terms of Clause 4.15(vi) of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007 the petitioner being the owner of the premises is duty bound to ensure the payment of the dues of electricity by the tenant before the tenant vacates the premises and thus would not be entitled to a new electric connection until the same was done. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the distribution licensee is bound to give supply of electricity to any premises within one month from the receipt of the application and on failure to supply the same within the said statutory fixed period it shall be liable to a penalty extending to one thousand rupees for each day of default. It is also submitted by learned counsel that in terms of Section 56(2) of the Act no sum due from any consumer 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 arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity and, therefore, since more than two years have passed the respondents cannot deny the electric connection to the petitioner. 6. It is also the stand of learned counsel that under Clause 4.1 of the Electricity Supply Code the respondents are obliged to give supply of electricity to the petitioner as the arrears of electricity are not those of any associate or relative of the petitioner. 7. Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel that Clause 4.15(vi) of the Electricity Supply Code, 2007 has no application in the present matter as the present matter arose before the enforcement of the said Supply Code. 8. In support of his stand learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Rekha Gupta vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others : 1999(3) PLJR 222 , in paragraphs 8, 11 and 12 of which it has been held as follows : “8. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that in case of providing electric connection to the tenant permission of the landlord is taken on requisition form and electric connection is provided in the premises. Therefore, the landlord or purchaser thereof shall be liable to pay electrical dues against the erstwhile consumer and unless dues are paid no fresh connection can be provided. In this regard it would be pertinent to mention herein that for providing electric connection an agreement in between the consumer and the Board is entered into for supply of electric energy and payment of electrical dues thereof. It is a personal contract between the parties and as such contract can not be enforced against third party. A party to the contract has remedy to recover the dues from the party thereto for non-fulfilment of contractual obligation by filing a suit or by initiating a certificate proceeding under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act. It is a personal contract between the parties and as such contract can not be enforced against third party. A party to the contract has remedy to recover the dues from the party thereto for non-fulfilment of contractual obligation by filing a suit or by initiating a certificate proceeding under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act. It is a personal liability of contracting party and such personal liability cannot be fastened with the landlord or the bonafide purchaser who is not in any manner connected with the erstwhile consumer of the vendor as it is not charge over the property. Merely because permission is taken for providing electric connection to the tenant it cannot be said that the landlord or the bonafide purchaser, who is not connected in any manner with the erstwhile consumer shall be liable for payment thereof. Similarly, annexure “C” to the counter affidavit says that reconnection of the premises should ordinarily be refused till the dues outstanding against the connection is cleared off in full. It does not say with regard to fresh connection. Moreover, it has already been stated that liability to pay electrical dues is between contracting parties and the same cannot be enforced against third party as it is a personal contract. Therefore, contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has no substance at all. 11. Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act says with regard to disconnection of supply of electric energy to consumers neglecting to pay the charges and realization of dues. Annexure C to the counter affidavit says that Assistant Electrical Engineer/Electrical Executive Engineer must see that security deposits are taken in each case and that arrear dues are not allowed to exceed the amount of security deposits. As soon as the energy dues are about to exceed the amount of security deposits, the supply line of the house should immediately be disconnected after going through the usual formalities of serving the required notice. However, if the Board allowed the consumer to consume electricity even after non-payment of dues resulting amount of arrears it cannot take advantage of its own wrong and refuse to give new connection to a bonafide purchaser on the ground that unless dues against the erstwhile consumer is not cleared off in full electric connection cannot be provided. However, if the Board allowed the consumer to consume electricity even after non-payment of dues resulting amount of arrears it cannot take advantage of its own wrong and refuse to give new connection to a bonafide purchaser on the ground that unless dues against the erstwhile consumer is not cleared off in full electric connection cannot be provided. Right of realization of dues against the consumer has also been provided under the Act i.e. by filing a suit or initiation of certificate proceeding. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, relied upon a decision in the case of Bhola Shankar Prasad Sah vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others disposed of on 21.12.1995, annexure E to the counter affidavit in support of his contention. On perusal of the decision as aforesaid, it is evident that the court has taken into consideration the report wherein the authority of the Electricity Board stated that earlier consumer and the intending consumer were related to each other. They were residing together. Electric connection was taken in collusion with each other to deny the Board of its legitimate dues and, accordingly, the court observed that new service connection could have been sanctioned only after realization of dues against service connection no. 34042. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner, the purchaser, is in any way connected with the erstwhile consumer i.e. Raj Kumar. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no bearing in the facts of the case. Moreover, in the case of Suman Packaging Private Limited, Digha Ghat vs. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board and others, 1995(1) B.L.J. 465 a Division Bench of this Court has held that refusing to give new connection to the purchaser/owner of a unit, who has purchased the same in auction held under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation is not justified under the law and he is not bound by any personal agreement and is not statutorily liable to clear off the personal dues of the erstwhile consumer. Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act does not apply in case where transferee had no connection with original consumer and, accordingly, direction was issued to the Electricity Board to give new electric connection to the petitioner on the terms and conditions as required under the law. Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act does not apply in case where transferee had no connection with original consumer and, accordingly, direction was issued to the Electricity Board to give new electric connection to the petitioner on the terms and conditions as required under the law. It has already been stated that, in fact, there is no distinction between purchase in auction or purchase by registered sale deed. Therefore, ratio decided is applicable in case of purchases by registered sale deed. The said decision was challenged before the Apex Court which was considered along with other similarly situated case in the case of Isha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others, 1995(2) S.C.C. 648 and the Apex Court upheld the decision of this Court.” 9. Learned counsel also relies upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Archana Devi vs. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. : 2012(4) PLJR 701 , paragraphs 9 and 13 of which are quoted below : “9. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the Board has produced a copy of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Supply Code”). The third proviso to Clause 4.1 of the Supply Code requires the purchaser of a property applying for a new connection, to clear the dues, in case he happens to be a relative of the person against whom the electricity arrears have been noted. Clause 4.15 of the Supply Code also cast a duty on the vendor to find out the outstanding dues as on the date of sale and also to pay the same. 13. A consideration of the provisions of the Supply Code and the recitals of the sale deed manifests that no responsibility or obligation has been cast on the petitioner to either make any enquiry as regarding pending electricity dues or to clear the same.” 10. Learned counsel also relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board vs. M/s. Hanuman Rice Mills & Ors. : 2010(4) PLJR 61 (SC), in paragraphs 8 & 9 of which it has been held as follows : “8. Learned counsel also relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board vs. M/s. Hanuman Rice Mills & Ors. : 2010(4) PLJR 61 (SC), in paragraphs 8 & 9 of which it has been held as follows : “8. In Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. [ (2009) 1 SCC 210 ] this court held, while reiterating the principle that the electricity dues did not constitute a charge on the premises, that where the applicable rules requires such payment, the same will be binding on the purchaser. This court held : “A transferee of the premises or a subsequent occupant of a 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 a premises, cannot be foisted with the electricity dues of any previous occupant, merely because he happens to be the current owner of the 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. 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. 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. Provisions similar to Clause 4.3(g) and (h) of Electricity Supply Code are necessary to safeguard the interests of the distributor.” 9. The position therefore can 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 re-connection or fresh connection of electricity, the arrears dues by the previous owner/occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the supplier can recover the arrears from a purchaser.” 12. Learned counsel for the respondent Board, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon Clause 4.15(vi) of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007 which is in the following terms :- “In case the electricity connection to the said premises was given with the consent of house owner, such person shall ensure the payment of all arrears/dues of electricity by the tenant before the tenant vacates the premises.” 13. It is also the contention of learned counsel that the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be of any help as those cases related to sale and purchase of premises, whereas in the present matter there has been continuity of title and possession of the same premises, the same having passed from one member of the family of the petitioner to the other by virtue of a compromise decree in the title suit. 14. 14. Learned counsel also relies upon a decision of this Court passed in CWJC No.16101 of 2010 (Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board), disposed of by order dated 2.12.2010 which has been annexed as Annexure R/C to the counter affidavit in which in the last but one paragraph it has been held as follows : “The Court therefore holds that in view of the provisions of Clause 4.15(vi) incorporated by the Board for its own protection in terms of the discussion contained in the case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (supra) referred to above, no fault can be found with the stand of the Board that until the dues are not cleared, it shall not provide electricity connection.” 15. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. So far as the stand of learned counsel for the petitioner under Section 56(2) is concerned, the same has no application in the facts of the case as the said section relates to arrears being shown continuously in the Electricity Board for the same to continue to be recoverable after a period beyond two years. The said issue does not arise in the present case as the electric connection was disconnected on 11.3.2007 and the last bill at the time of disconnection also clearly shows the entire arrears at the relevant time. 16. Similarly I do not find any force in the reliance placed by learned counsel for the Board on the provisions of Clause 4.1 of the Electricity Supply Code as the third proviso to the said provision applies in the case where the applicant is an associate or relative of the defaulting consumer and only in such a case if there are arrears of electricity dues on a premises a new connection shall not be released to the new applicant. Evidently the petitioner cannot be considered either as associate or relative of the defaulting consumer, namely, the erstwhile tenant of father of the petitioner. The said provision does not in term apply to the case of the petitioner. 17. The main issue to be considered in the present matter is the applicability of Clause 4.15(vi) of the Electricity Supply Code. Evidently the petitioner cannot be considered either as associate or relative of the defaulting consumer, namely, the erstwhile tenant of father of the petitioner. The said provision does not in term apply to the case of the petitioner. 17. The main issue to be considered in the present matter is the applicability of Clause 4.15(vi) of the Electricity Supply Code. From a perusal of the said provision it is evident that certain condition must be present before the same can be invoked, that is, the electric connection to the premises itself must have been given with the consent of the house owner and only then the house owner would be liable to pay all arrears/dues of Electricity Board of the tenant of the premises. Therefore until the said condition is satisfied no benefit can be taken of the same by the Board. In the present matter there is nothing on the record to show that the electric connection to the premises in question has been given to the said tenant Shankar Rai with the consent of the father of the petitioner. Thus the very precondition to the applicability of sub clause (vi) does not exist in the present matter. 18. Moreover, the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007 has brought into force by publication in the official gazette on 10.1.2008. The electric connection in the present matter was admittedly disconnected on 11.3.2007 and thus on the date of disconnection the Electricity Supply Code, 2007 was not in existence. Hence any liability pertaining to the erstwhile tenant who had admittedly vacated the premises with respect to his electric connection cannot be foisted on the petitioner so as to give retrospective operation to the provisions of Clause 4.15(vi) of the Supply Code. 19. Thus on both the counts I find that the respondent Board is unable to show how the petitioner can be held liable for the payment of the electricity dues of the erstwhile tenant whose connection has been disconnected on 11.3.2007. In the said circumstances, the reliance placed on the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra) can be of no avail as these issues did not at all arise in the said case. 20. In the said circumstances, the reliance placed on the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra) can be of no avail as these issues did not at all arise in the said case. 20. Thus in the light of the aforesaid discussions this Court is of the view that it is not open to the respondent Board, now the Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited, to insist upon the payment of the arrears of the erstwhile tenant before granting a new domestic electric connection to the premises of the petitioner. Let the same be done within a period of one month from today in terms of the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 43 of the Act. 21. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.