Judgment : 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order, dated 03.06.2013, passed by the second respondent, Superintending Engineer, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, Dindigul, and to direct the respondents to grant new HT supply for the property in S.F.No.515/575/2 of Pushpathur Village, Dindigul District. 2. With the consent of both the learned counsel, this writ petition was taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 3. The property, comprised in S.F.No.515/575/2 of Pushpathur Village, Dindigul District and consisting of land and building, was owned by M/s.Sri Venkatesa Paper & Board Mills Ltd., and they were granted an electricity service connection bearing HT SC No.200. The said company had some financial crisis and auction was initiated under SARFAESI Act and the said property along with machineries were brought for public auction by Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. The petitioner was a successful bidder in the said auction and sale certificate was issued to the petitioner on 25.07.2013, which was registered as document No.1458 of 2013 on the file of the Sub- Registrar Office at Keeranur. 4. The petitioner, being the purchaser of the said property, applied to the second respondent for grant of fresh electricity service connection. The said second respondent, by the impugned proceedings, directed the petitioner to pay the outstanding arrears payable by the erstwhile owner namely M/s.Sri Venkatesa Paper & Board Mills Ltd., and on payment of the arrears necessary proposal would be sent to the competent authority to consider for waiving the belated payment surcharge (BPSC) and thereafter the petitioner's request for new HT supply will be considered. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent calling upon the petitioner to clear the arrears/dues of the erstwhile owner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 5. Mr.K.Duraisamy, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr.K.K.Senthil, learned counsel, challenging the impugned proceedings on several grounds. The learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner was issued the sale certificate on 25.03.2013 and on 08.04.2013 an application was made for grant of fresh HT service connection. In response to the said application, the impugned order was passed by the second respondent on 03.06.2013. As there was a defect in the said sale certificate, dated 25.03.2013, the same was surrendered and a fresh sale certificate was issued to the petitioner on 25.07.2013, which was duly registered. In response to the said application, the impugned order was passed by the second respondent on 03.06.2013. As there was a defect in the said sale certificate, dated 25.03.2013, the same was surrendered and a fresh sale certificate was issued to the petitioner on 25.07.2013, which was duly registered. 6. The learned senior counsel submitted that the respondents have referred to Clause 17(9)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code (hereinafter, it may be referred to as 'the Supply Code') for demanding the arrears of erstwhile owner and the provision, having been inserted only on 18.03.2011, cannot have retrospective effect, since the disconnection of the electricity supply was effected as early as during October, 2000 owing to the default committed by the erstwhile owner. Therefore, Clause 17(9)(a) of the Supply Code cannot be pressed into service as the same does not have retrospective effect. 7. Further, it is submitted that in terms of Section 56(2) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter, it may be referred to as 'the Act'), the arrears of electricity consumption charges is recoverable within a period of two years and Clause 17(9)(a) of the Supply Code is inconsistent with Section 56(2) of the Act and beyond the power conferred under Section 181 of the act to frame regulations. It is further submitted that the regulation should be consistent with the provisions of the Act and Clause 17(9)(a) of the Supply Code, being contrary to Section 56(2) of the Act, has to be held to be illegal. Further, by referring to Regulation 26(1)(2) of the Supply Code, it is submitted that the provisions of the Act would contravene when there is an inconsistency between the regulations framed under the Act and the provisions of the Act. 8. Further, by referring to Regulation 26(1)(2) of the Supply Code, it is submitted that the provisions of the Act would contravene when there is an inconsistency between the regulations framed under the Act and the provisions of the Act. 8. Further, the learned senior counsel submitted that in Paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit, it has been erroneously stated that the petitioner has purchased the said property in an auction sale with the knowledge that there is arrears of consumption charges payable by the erstwhile owner, without taking note of the fact that the sale certificate, dated 25.07.2013, was the second sale certificate, which was registered after the petitioner gave an application for fresh HT Supply on 08.04.2013 and as on the date of first sale certificate namely 25.03.2013, the petitioner was not put on notice about the arrears of electricity consumption charges payable by the erstwhile owner and the petitioner purchased the property in as-is-where-is condition and the impugned notice is only a reply to the petitioner's application, dated 08.04.2013, and therefore the contention raised in Paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit is misleading. In this regard, reference was made to the letter sent by the petitioner, dated 18.07.2013, wherein the Asset Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd., requested the petitioner to return the original sale certificate, dated 25.03.2013, to replace the same with revised sale certificate. 9. Further, the learned senior counsel placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of NESCO v. Raghunath Paper Mills (P) Ltd., reported in (2012) 13 SCC 479 and submitted that in the case, where a request is made for fresh connection, the arrears payable by the erstwhile owner cannot be demanded and the present writ petition is clearly covered by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and therefore the impugned order has to be set aside. 10. Mrs.S.Srimathi, learned counsel for Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, learned counsel for the respondents, referred to the notice, dated 03.06.2013, issued to the petitioner, which is the impugned communication, wherein the petitioner was informed that a sum of Rs.1,67,69,384/-is liable to be paid by the erstwhile owner, which includes the belated payment surcharge (BPSC) upto 31.05.2013. 10. Mrs.S.Srimathi, learned counsel for Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, learned counsel for the respondents, referred to the notice, dated 03.06.2013, issued to the petitioner, which is the impugned communication, wherein the petitioner was informed that a sum of Rs.1,67,69,384/-is liable to be paid by the erstwhile owner, which includes the belated payment surcharge (BPSC) upto 31.05.2013. Further, the petitioner was informed that if they agreed to pay the outstanding arrears in one lump sum, necessary proposal for considering the waiver of BPSC will be submitted to the competent authority and the petitioner's request for new HT supply will be considered on payment of arrears. 11. It is further submitted that subsequently an error in the computation of BPSC was detected, accordingly BPSC charges were revised and the total arrears claimed by the Electricity Board is Rs.1,35,53,133/-. Further, the learned counsel referred to the communication, dated 27.03.2014, sent by the petitioner to the second respondent, wherein the petitioner requested the second respondent to permit them to pay C.C. arrears of Rs.34,48,063/-by way of ten installments, to waive BPSC upto 21.04.2001 and to waive monthly minimum charges for notice period and special guarantee charge to enable them to run industry smoothly. Further, the petitioner in the said communication undertook to pay the arrears of the current consumption charges after intimation from the second respondent. Further, the learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission for giving approval to waive BPSC charges, the details are being collected by the second respondent to be forwarded to the Chief Financial Controller of TNEB to be submitted before the Commission. 12. Further, the learned counsel referred to the letter sent by the erstwhile owner M/s.Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Limited, dated 22.11.2012, wherein they agreed to remit the entire arrears of Rs.60,77,654/- in 15 equated monthly installments to help them to revive the industry. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner having undertook to clear the arrears by their letter, dated 27.03.2014, has now approached this Court by challenging the impugned communication. 13. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner having undertook to clear the arrears by their letter, dated 27.03.2014, has now approached this Court by challenging the impugned communication. 13. The learned counsel referred to Clause 6.10 of the erstwhile terms and conditions of the electricity supply and submitted that the Board is empowered to collect the arrears of electricity consumption charges, if the services are to be availed by other parties in the same premises either by purchaser or transfer or in auction or on lease basis and in such cases the services would be effected only on clearance of the dues outstanding against such disconnected/dismantled services by the intending consumers. The learned counsel referred to the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 648 ; Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd., v. A.P. State Electricity Board, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 470 ; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., v. Paramount Polymers (P) Ltd., reported in (2006) 13 SCC 101; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., v. Excel Buildcon (P) Ltd., reported in (2008) 10 SCC 720 and Paschimanchal VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd., v. DVS Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 210 . 14. Laying emphasis on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., (cited supra), it is submitted that 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 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. 15. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court held that if the rules are silent, the Board 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. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court held that if the rules are silent, the Board 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. Therefore, it is submitted that as far as the respondents Board, since there is a specific rule to the said effect as contained in Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions as well as in Clause 17(9)(a) of the Supply Code, the Board is entitled to insist upon the payment of arrears payable by the erstwhile owner. 16. Further, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Haryana SEB vs. Hanuman Rice Mills, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 145 and submitted that when there are statutory rules or terms and conditions authorizing the Board to demand from the purchaser the arrears due by the previous owner, the action of the Board is perfectly justified. Further, the learned counsel referred to the decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Rukmani v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep.by it's Chairman, Chennai-600 002 and others, in W.A.Nos.1896, 2189 of 2001, 410 to 422 of 2008, dated 17.08.2011. Further, the learned counsel referred to the decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Omni Fusion Technologies, rep.by it's Partner P.Rajagopalan vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai, in W.P.No.7587 of 2011, dated 29.04.2014. 17. Further, by referring to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1978, it is submitted that the Board can recover the same as arrears of land revenue and this position was also clarified by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijili Vitran Nigam Ltd., (cited supra), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court considered the similar provision, wherein there was power to recover the arrears of land revenue. It is further submitted that though the Act 29 Act 1978 was repealed, the present regulation as well as Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions empower the Board to recover the arrears. 18. It is further submitted that though the Act 29 Act 1978 was repealed, the present regulation as well as Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions empower the Board to recover the arrears. 18. In reply, the learned senior counsel submitted that in the said decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, the effect of Section 56 of the Act was not considered and the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of NESCO (cited supra). 19. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 20. The legal issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the respondents Board would be justified in demanding the arrears of current consumption charges payable by the erstwhile owner from the petitioner when they sought for fresh connection for their Company. The said issue came up for consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court in several decisions and it would suffice to refer to few decisions on the said point. In the case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., (cited supra), the Honourable Supreme Court, while considering the said issue, held that when a purchaser of a premises approaches the distributor (Electricity Board) seeking a fresh electricity connection to it's premises for supply of electricity, the distributor can stipulate the terms subject to which the distributor would supply electricity and that it can stipulate 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. It was further held that if the rules are silent, it can stipulate such terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper to regulate its transactions and dealings. The relevant portion of the decision reads as follows: “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. The relevant portion of the decision reads as follows: “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 terms.” 21. In the case of Haryana SEB (cited supra), the same issue fell for consideration and the Honourable Supreme Court, after referring to the earlier decision on the point, which includes the decisions rendered in the cases of Isha Marbles (cited supra), Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd., (cited supra), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (cited supra) and Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (cited supra), summarized the legal position as follows: “(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, authorise the supplier of electricity to demand from the purchaser of a property claiming reconnection or fresh connection of electricity, the arrears due by the previous owner/occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the supplier can recover the arrears from a purchaser.” 22. In terms of the above decision, when there are 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 reconnection or fresh connection of electricity, the arrears due by the previous owner/occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the supplier can recover the arrears from a purchaser. 23. The decision of the Honourable Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1898 & 2189 of 2001, dated 17.08.2011 and the decision in W.P.(MD) No.7587 of 2011, dated 29.04.2014, are also to the same effect by following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court. In W.P.(MD) No.7587 of 2011, this Court (DHPJ), apart from upholding the power of Board to demand arrears from the purchaser for securing fresh connection for the same premises, examined the scope of Section 185 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, which deals with repeal and saving and held that Section 185(2)(a) of the Act makes it clear that notwithstanding the repeal of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken including any rule, notification, inspection, order or notice made under the Repealing Law shall have effect insofar as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. In so holding, this Court accepted the contention of the Electricity Board that 6.10 of the terms and conditions would continue to operate even after the repeal of 1948 Act and therefore the Board is entitled to sustain the demand relying on Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions. 24. In the light of the above decisions of this Court, the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner stating that Regulation 17(9)(a) of the Supply Code, having been inserted on 18.03.2011, cannot be pressed into service with the retrospective effect, is not acceptable in terms of the provisions of Section 185 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. In any event, in this writ petition, there is no challenge as regards the validity of any statutory provision so as to examine the contention as regards retrospectivity of Regulation 17(9)(a) of the Supply Code. 25. The sheet anchor of the arguments placed by the learned senior counsel is by relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of NESCO (cited supra). 25. The sheet anchor of the arguments placed by the learned senior counsel is by relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of NESCO (cited supra). In the said decision, a factory unit of M/s.Konark Paper and Industries Ltd., was liquidated by the Company Judge of Orissa High Court and the Official Liquidator made an advertisement for sale of movable and immovable assets and properties of the said factory unit on as-is-where-is basis. The sale was confirmed in favour of the first respondent therein and possession was handed over. Since there was no power supply, the first respondent therein made an application to the Chief Executive Officer, North Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd., for restoration of the same. On such application, the Electricity Supply Company directed the first respondent to pay the electricity dues outstanding against the premises in question. Aggrieved by such action, a writ petition was filed by the first respondent therein before the High Court of Orissa to quash the said demand letter. The writ petition was allowed and as against which, the Electricity Supply Company preferred an appeal before the Honourable Division Bench, which confirmed the decision of the learned single Judge and that is how the appeal was preferred before the Honourable Supreme Court. The point, which fell for consideration in the said appeal, is 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. 26. After referring to the factual details, the Honourable Supreme Court took note of provisions of Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004. Regulation 13(10) of the said Electricity Supply Code deals with transfer of service connection and it reads as follows: “13(10) Transfer of service connection: (a) Subject to Regulation 8, the transfer of service connection shall be effected within 15 days from the date of receipt of complete application. (b) The service connection from the name of a person to the name of another consumer shall not be transferred unless the arrear charges pending against the previous occupier are cleared: Provided that this shall not be applicable when the ownership of the premises is transferred under the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act.” 27. (b) The service connection from the name of a person to the name of another consumer shall not be transferred unless the arrear charges pending against the previous occupier are cleared: Provided that this shall not be applicable when the ownership of the premises is transferred under the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act.” 27. Interpreting the Regulation 13(10) of the said Electricity Supply Code, it was pointed out that the first respondent therein, having purchased the unit on an auction sale conducted by the Official Liquidator on as-is-where- is basis, has applied for a fresh service connection and has not applied for transfer of service connection from the name of the erstwhile owner company to it's name and the errors of electricity dues, were not levied against the premises in question. On the other hand, they were levied against the erstwhile company. Taking note of the factual details of the case and in the light of the Regulation 13(10)(b) of the said Electricity Supply Code, it was held that the Clause applies to a request for transfer of service connection, but not to a fresh connection. Accordingly, the Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Electricity Supply Company and held as follows:” 20. In a recent decision i.e., in Haryana SEB v. Hanuman Rice Mills, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 145 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 633, this Court, after referring to all the earlier decisions including Isha Marbles vs. Bihar SEB, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 648 and Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., vs. DVS Steels and Alloys (P) Ltd., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 210 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 85, etc., summarized the position in the following manner, which is as under: (Hanuman Rice Mills case, SCC pp.150-51, para 12)” 12. ....(“(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 reconnection or fresh connection of electricity, the arrears due by the previous owner/occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the supplier can recover the arrears from a purchaser.” 21. In the light of the above discussion, specific factual details regarding the position of Respondent 1 which purchased the said premises under court auction-sale from the Official Liquidation on “as-is-where-is” and “whatever- there-is” basis and in the light of the Regulations quoted above, particularly, sub-clause 10(b) of Regulation 13, we hold that the request was not for the transfer from the previous owner to the purchaser, on the other hand, it was a request for a fresh connection for the unit of Respondent 1 herein. We are in entire agreement with the decision arrived at by the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. 22. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal, consequently, the same is dismissed.” 28. As noticed above, the factual matrix, which was the subject matter of the above decision, is clearly distinguishable from the facts on the hand. It has been noted in the previous part of the Order that the terms and conditions of supply more particularly Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions, empowers the Board to collect the dues outstanding and the test is whether it is in respect of the consumption premises either by the purchase or transfer or any auction or on lease basis. That apart Regulation 17(9)(a) of the Supply Code is to the same effect and there is no distinction in respect of reconnection of the disconnected service connection or while effecting new service connection and the test is whether it is in respect of the same premises and if it is so then new service connection could be effected only after payment of dues attributed to such premises by the applicant for new service connection. Therefore, the decision in the case of NESCO (cited supra) does not render any support to the case of the petitioner. 29. Furthermore, it is to be noted that after the impugned order was passed on 03.06.2013 demanding arrears of current consumption charges, BPSC and other charges, the petitioner by the letter, dated 27.03.2014, requested the authority to permit them to pay the arrears of current consumption charges being Rs.34,48,063/- in ten installments and requested for waiver of BPSC upto 21.04.2001, waive monthly minimum charges for notice period and special guarantee charge. 30. 30. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Board would be willing to accept the proposal of the petitioner subject to the condition that they remit the entire amount of Rs.34,40,063/- in one installment and thereafter the Board will place the reasons for waiver of BPSC charges upto 21.04.2001 to the Electricity Regulatory Commission pursuant to the directions issued by the Commission. In such circumstances, the petitioner having accused themselves of the factual position, cannot now challenge the impugned order and take a different stand than they consciously taken by them in the letter, dated 27.03.2014. 31. In the light of the above discussions and in view of the decisions referred supra, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. 32. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the arrears of current consumption charges of Rs.34,48,063/-, the petitioner is permitted to remit the same in five equal installments. As regards the waiver of BPSC, as undertaken by the Electricity Board, they shall address the competent authority for considering the waiver of BPSC. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.