Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1032 (GUJ)

Nemchand Jain v. State of Gujarat

2017-06-05

C.L.SONI

body2017
JUDGMENT : C.L. Soni, J. 1. Learned advocate for the petitioners requested to hear the matter in priority on the ground that the petitioners are unable to start their industrial and commercial activities as for last more than two years, they are without electric connection. Considering the urgency pointed out, the matter was taken up for hearing in priority. 2. Following are the prayers made in paragraph 8 of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: "(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing impugned communication dated 13.3.2017 (Annexure-A); (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 to permanently supply electricity for commercial and industrial purposes in the premises of the petitioner firm at Plot No. 909, GIDC, Sarigam, Village Sarigam, INA (INA); Alternatively (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 3 to reconsider applications dated 17.2.2014 filed by the petitioner firm for permanent supply of electricity in its premises at Plot No. 909, GIDC, Sarigam, Village Sarigam, INA (INA) for industrial and commercial purposes (Annexure-P Colly), which have been returned vide impugned communication dated 13.3.2014 (Annexure-A); (D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 to give connection for permanent supply of electricity in premises of petitioner firm at Plot No. 909, GIDC, Sarigam, Village Sarigam, INA (INA) for industrial and commercial purposes on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court thinks fit; (E) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para 8(C) above may kindly be granted; (F) Any other further relief/s as may be deemed fit in the present circumstances of the case may kindly be granted." 3. By impugned communication dated 13.03.2014 at Annexure -'A', the petitioners were informed that there was outstanding dues of Rs. 49,07,840.93 against M/s. viraj Ice Cold Storage (to be referred as erstwhile consumer) and hence as per amendment to Clause 4.1.11 by The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2010, ("the Regulations" for short), their applications for permanent supply of electricity could not be processed until such dues were cleared. 49,07,840.93 against M/s. viraj Ice Cold Storage (to be referred as erstwhile consumer) and hence as per amendment to Clause 4.1.11 by The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2010, ("the Regulations" for short), their applications for permanent supply of electricity could not be processed until such dues were cleared. With the impugned communication, the applications of the petitioners were returned to them. 4. The amended Clause 4.1.11 reads as under: "An application for new connection, reconnection, addition or reduction of load, change of name or shifting of service line for any premises need not be entertained unless any dues relating to that premises or any dues of the applicant to the Distribution Licensee in respect of any other service connection held in his name anywhere in the jurisdiction of the Distribution Licensee have been cleared. Provided that in case the connection is released after recovery of earlier dues from the new applicant and in case the licensee, after availing appropriate legal remedies, get the full part of the dues from the previous consumer/owner occupier of that premise, the amount shall be refunded to the new consumer/owner or occupier from whom the dues have been recovered after adjusting the expenses to recover such dues." 5. The first part of Clause 4.1.11 of the Regulations is declared as ultra vires by Full Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 03.12.2012 in Special Civil Application No. 2582 of 2012 (reported in 2013 (1) GLH 363 ). It is pointed out that the judgment of Full Bench of this Court is under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the said judgment. Therefore, as on today, the amended Clause 4.1.11 of the Regulations operates. 6. As per the case of the petitioners, after the petitioners purchased rights, title and interest of lessee in Industrial Plot No. 909, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC), Sarigam (to be referred as the premises), they applied for new permanent electric connections for industrial and commercial purposes at the premises on 17.09.2010. However, since respondent No.2 - the Vij company did not provide permanent supply of electricity, the petitioners applied for temporary supply of electricity which was granted on 19.10.2010 and at that junction, the respondents did not mention, as regards, any dues of the previous owner of the premises. However, since respondent No.2 - the Vij company did not provide permanent supply of electricity, the petitioners applied for temporary supply of electricity which was granted on 19.10.2010 and at that junction, the respondents did not mention, as regards, any dues of the previous owner of the premises. Such temporary supply was given for six months which was subsequently extended for further six months, however, the respondent did not raise any bill after October, 2011, since the further period of six months was getting over on 31.01.2012, a request was made to extend temporary supply for further period of six months but respondents suddenly without any prior notice or intimation disconnected the temporary supply. Thereafter, at the request of the petitioners, respondents raised bill for Rs. 29,506/- which was though paid but respondents did not restore the temporary power supply. The petitioners then gave legal notice and made application in prescribed form on 17.12.2012 for temporary supply of electricity and at that juncture also respondents did not mention about any dues of the previous owner but on the contrary, the concerned person of respondent No. 2 endorsed on the application that there were no dues of the electricity on the premises. However, since the temporary supply of the electricity was not restored to the petitioners, the petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No. 431 of 2013 and for the first time, respondent No. 2 came with the contention in its reply that there were previous dues of the erstwhile owner of the premises which were of 1998 and for such dues, the Civil Suit No. 80 of 2000 was filed which was dismissed for default in the year, 2002, and that the process of restoration of the suit was going on. This Court disposed of the said petition with direction to continue the temporary supply to the petitioners till the construction work of the factory at the premises was completed with further direction to the petitioners to apply for permanent connection for industrial as well as commercial purposes within ten days. The petitioners thus, made two applications for permanent supply of electricity, however, such applications were returned for the reasons stated above. The petitioners thus, made two applications for permanent supply of electricity, however, such applications were returned for the reasons stated above. Two main contentions raised in the petitions are that the suit filed by respondent No. 2 against erstwhile consumer was dismissed for default way back in the month of October, 2002 and, therefore, when the petitioners made applications for electric connections, there were no arrears of charges of electricity against the previous owner and that in terms of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("the Act"), the dues against the previous owner sought to be recovered from the petitioners have become time-barred and for the time-barred dues, the petitioners could not be denied electric connection. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Jay Kansara with learned advocate Mr. Rahul Dev for M/s. Wadiaghandy and Company, the advocate for the petitioners submitted that the dues against the erstwhile consumer were not recoverable as arrears of dues as after dismissed of suit for recovery of such dues, no application for restoration of the suit was filed upto 2013 when the petitioners made application for electricity supply. He submitted that when the petitioners made application in the year 2010 for new electric connection, the petitioners were never intimated about any outstanding dues against the erstwhile owner of the premises and in fact even when on 17.12.2012, the petitioners made application in prescribed form for temporary connection, it was stated that there were no outstanding dues on the premises. Mr. Kansara submitted that for the first time it was declared before this Court in reply to the above said petition filed by the petitioners that there were dues pending of the year 1998 against the erstwhile owner for which the civil suit was filed in the year 2000. He submitted that for time-barred dues of the erstwhile owner, the petitioners could not be denied electric connection by resorting to Clause 4.1.11 of the Regulations. He submitted that even as per Section 56(2) of the Act, respondent No. 2 is not entitled to recover any charges from the consumer after the period two years from the date it fell due. He submitted that even as per Section 56(2) of the Act, respondent No. 2 is not entitled to recover any charges from the consumer after the period two years from the date it fell due. He submitted that, undisputabely, in connection with the premises purchased by the petitioners, the recovery sought to be made from the petitioners of the past dues of the erstwhile consumer is for period beyond two years and, therefore, the past dues of the erstwhile consumer are not recoverable from the petitioners and if such dues are not recoverable, Clause 4.1.11 of the Regulations cannot be pressed into service against the petitioners to deny electric connection to them. He submitted that the outstanding dues against the erstwhile consumer are the theft charges and to recover such theft charges, above referred civil suit was filed by the respondent. He submitted that Clause 4.1.11 cannot be applied for recovery of the theft charges of the erstwhile consumer from the petitioners as such charges are penal in nature and could be recovered only from the person who is found responsible for committing theft of energy at his premises. He submitted that the dues which could be recovered under Clause 4.1.11 relating to the premises of the erstwhile consumer are only regular dues for consumption of electricity and other charges as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and not the theft charges. He thus, urged to allow the petition and to direct respondents No. 2 and 3 to give permanent electric supply to the petitioners for industrial and commercial purpose at the above said premises without insisting for clearing outstanding dues of the erstwhile consumer. 8. Learned advocate Ms. Lilu Bhaya appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted that the dues of the erstwhile consumer are relating to the premises purchased by the petitioners and they are required to clear such dues for getting permanent electric connection at their premises as required by Clause 4.1.11 of the Regulations. She submitted that the outstanding dues against the erstwhile consumer were of the year 1998 and to recover such dues, respondent No. 2 filed suit in the year 2000 which was within the period of limitation. She submitted that Section 56(2) of the Act has no application for recovery of the dues of erstwhile consumer for giving electric connection to the prospective consumer like the petitioners. She submitted that Section 56(2) of the Act has no application for recovery of the dues of erstwhile consumer for giving electric connection to the prospective consumer like the petitioners. She submitted that the Regulations framed are statutory in nature and therefore, the person who wants electric connection is required to comply with the conditions incorporated by Clause 4.1.11. She submitted that Clause 4.1.11 specifically provides for clearing of any dues relating to the premises at which new connection or reconnection is asked for and the word "any dues" would include the dues pending against the erstwhile consumer for theft of energy. She submitted that the word "dues" is not defined in the Act or in any Regulations and, therefore, no distinction can be made between the dues for regular consumption of the electricity and the dues for recovery of theft charges. She submitted that since the theft charges are in connection with the electric connection given to the erstwhile consumer at his premises, such would certainly be the dues payable by the erstwhile consumer relating to his premises and when at such premises the petitioners want new electric connection, they have to comply with the terms and conditions incorporated in the Regulations for supply of electricity at the premises purchased by them. She submitted that since the petitioners were immediately intimated about the past dues pursuant to their applications for permanent connection, the dues to be cleared by the petitioners are not time-barred dues. She, thus, urged to dismiss the petition. 9. The Court, having heard learned advocates for both the sides, finds that undisputabely, when the petitioners purchased rights in the premises from erstwhile consumer, there were outstanding dues of the theft charges of the year 1998 against the erstwhile consumer of the premises for recovery of which respondent No. 2 filed civil suit in the year 2000. The Court was shown the copy of the plaint of the suit filed by respondent No. 2 wherefrom the Court finds that the recovery sought in the suit from the erstwhile consumer is of theft charges in connection with the electric instalation at the premises purchased by the petitioners. Such suit was filed within the period of limitation, however, as stated in the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, the suit was dismissed for default for unability to serve one of the defendants. Such suit was filed within the period of limitation, however, as stated in the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, the suit was dismissed for default for unability to serve one of the defendants. One of the grounds taken in the petition is that the suit was dismissed in the month of October, 2002, and the application filed for restoration of the suit was barred by limitation and thus there were no arrears of dues on the premises when the petitioners purchased the premises on 24.05.2010. The Court finds that simply because the suit was dismissed for default and the restoration application was filed beyond the period of limitation that by itself is no ground to say that there were no arrears of dues in connection with the premises purchased by the petitioners. Learned advocate for the petitioners, however, submitted that even in terms of Section 56(2) of the Act, the recovery of the dues of erstwhile consumer was time-barred. It is required to note that the limitation provided in sub-section (2) of Section 56 starts reckoning from the date when the sum becomes first due to be recoverable from the consumer but if such sum is shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied, irrespective of the time limit of two years provided therein such sum could be recovered. It does not appear from the provision of Section 56 of the Act that the time limit of two years would apply for recovery of theft charges. If the general law of limitation applies, the civil suit was since filed within three years, it was not time-barred and now when restoration application is filed, it cannot be said at this stage that recovery of dues has become time-barred. 10. If the general law of limitation applies, the civil suit was since filed within three years, it was not time-barred and now when restoration application is filed, it cannot be said at this stage that recovery of dues has become time-barred. 10. Learned advocate for the petitioners, however, submitted that when the petitioners for the first time applied for permanent connection in the month of May, 2010, the petitioners were never intimated about any outstanding dues against the erstwhile consumer and in the month of December, 2012, when the petitioners applied for extension of temporary connection, it was intimated that there were no dues of electricity on the premises but for the first time in the year 2014, the petitioners were intimated that there were outstanding dues against the erstwhile consumer which the petitioners were required to clear, however, by such time outstanding dues of the erstwhile consumer sought to be recovered for giving electric connection to the petitioners have become time-barred against the petitioners. Learned advocate for the petitioners has relied on the judgment dated 04.04.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1518 of 2006 to submit that as held in the said judgment the dues which have become time-barred for more than three years cannot be said to be legally recoverable from the subsequent purchaser. It appears from the facts of the said case that the electric connection was permanently disconnected on 01.06.1977 and the dues were sought to be recovered in the year 2004/2005. It does not appear from the facts stated therein that any suit was filed for recovery of the dues from the erstwhile consumer. It appears that it was only when the subsequent purchaser applied for the electric supply in the year 2005, he was asked to clear the dues of the year 1977. In the present case, as stated above after the theft charges fell due in the year 1998, respondent No. 2 filed suit in the year 2000, i.e., within two years. Thus, the dues against the erstwhile consumer had not become time-barred. Thus, the said judgment will have no application in the facts of the present case. 11. The petitioners made two separate applications for permanent supply of the electricity on 17.02.2014. Thus, the dues against the erstwhile consumer had not become time-barred. Thus, the said judgment will have no application in the facts of the present case. 11. The petitioners made two separate applications for permanent supply of the electricity on 17.02.2014. It is in connection with these two applications for permanent supply of electricity, the petitioners are informed by the intimation dated 13.03.2014 at Annexure - 'A' that as per Clause 4.1.11 of the Regulations, the petitioners are to first clear the dues of the erstwhile consumer only then their applications could be processed. It is required to note that when the petitioners had filed Special Civil Application No. 431 of 2013 seeking restoration of temporary supply of electricity which was disconnected on 24.02.2012, the petitioners were made aware through the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 dated 25.03.2013 that the dues against the erstwhile consumer were outstanding and in view of the Clause 4.1.11 of the Regulations, the petitioners could not be given connection at the premises purchased by them unless such outstanding dues of the erstwhile consumer were clear. The Court while dealing with the said petition has made following observations in paragraph 3 of oral judgment dated 10.02.2014: "3. During the course of submission, it transpired that the petitioner is yet to apply for permanent connection as the existing connection is only for the purpose of construction of the factory building. The fact remains to be noted that there are different tariffs for different purposes of supply of electricity and therefore, it is clearly understood by all that petitioner will have to apply for fresh electricity connection on a permanent basis for commercial as well as industrial purpose." Thus, the petitioners had knowledge about the dues of erstwhile consumer before the applications for permanent connection were made and were even immediately intimated after they made such applications. In such view of the matter, even going by limitation of three years for recovery of dues, it is also not possible to accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the dues in relation to the premises purchased by the petitioners have become time-barred against the petitioners. In such view of the matter, even going by limitation of three years for recovery of dues, it is also not possible to accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the dues in relation to the premises purchased by the petitioners have become time-barred against the petitioners. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri, (2010) 9 SCC 145 relied on by learned advocate for the petitioners, the respondent therein when applied for electric connection, there was no statutory rule or terms and conditions of supply authorizing demand of dues of previous consumer. Such terms and conditions were later on introduced. It was found by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the respondent first approached the appellant Electricity Board for electric connection, no demand was made for arrears of dues and respondent obtained connection. It was after more than three years, the demand was made for clearance of the dues of the erstwhile consumer. In such facts situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the view taken by the High Court that the claim relating to the previous owner could not be enforced against the respondent therein. This judgment shall have no applicability to the facts of the present case. 12. The person applying for the electricity supply is to comply with terms and conditions of supply. Therefore, when Clause 4.1.11 of the Regulations provides that no application for new connection or reconnection or change of name or shifting of service line for any premises need to be entertained unless any dues relating to that premises are clear, the petitioners are required to satisfy the condition regarding clearance of the outstanding dues in relation to the premises for which they have applied for permanent electric supply. In Clause 4.1.11, no limitation is provided for Vij company to ask for clearance of the dues of erstwhile consumer. When the petitioners purchased the premises, they could have ascertained and satisfied themselves as to the electricity dues in connection with the premises. However, no distinction could be made between the purchaser of the premises who was aware that there were outstanding electric dues against the previous owner of the premises and one who was not aware of it. When the petitioners purchased the premises, they could have ascertained and satisfied themselves as to the electricity dues in connection with the premises. However, no distinction could be made between the purchaser of the premises who was aware that there were outstanding electric dues against the previous owner of the premises and one who was not aware of it. In either case, the dues have to be paid by the purchaser or new occupant of the premises, once there is a condition of statutory nature like Clause 4.1.11 for clearance of the dues before the supply could be given to the purchaser or the new occupant of the premises. 13. As regards the contention that the words "any dues relating to that premises" used in Clause 4.1.11 would not include the theft charges to be recovered from erstwhile consumer but it is in relation to recovery of regular charges either for consumption of electricity or other charges contemplated to be recovered from the consumer under the Act, the Court finds that a consumer, who is otherwise responsible to pay the regular charges for the electricity consumed by him and other charges required to be paid under the Act, if uses electricity supply in unauthorized manner or by committing theft of the energy and is made liable to pay the charges as per the assessment done either under Section 126 of the Act or Section 135 of the Act, such are the dues payable by the consumer. The assessment for unauthorized use of electricity and for theft of electricity could be said to be relating to the premises as it is not possible to make unauthorized use of electricity or theft of electricity unrelated to the electrical installation at the premises. The word "dues" is not defined either in the Act, Rules or Regulations nor any distinction is made either in the Act or in the Regulations between the dues relating to the theft charges and other charges recoverable from the consumer in connection with the supply of electricity by the Viz Company to the consumer. Therefore, the contention that the theft charges cannot be recovered as dues by enforcing Clause 4.1.11 cannot be accepted. Therefore, the contention that the theft charges cannot be recovered as dues by enforcing Clause 4.1.11 cannot be accepted. Learned advocate for the petitioners, however, relied on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sabasthi Ammal (2015 SCC OnLine Mad 1299) to submit that as held by Madras High Court, theft charges against the previous consumer cannot be recovered for giving electric connection to the subsequent occupier of the premises asking for connection or reconnection of the electricity. 14. In the said case, the Madras High Court considered Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions of Supply of Electricity in the context of the definition of "debtor" and "dues" given in Sections 2(3) and 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1978. The Madras High Court has observed and held in Paragraphs No. 12 to 19 as under: "12. In this connection, this Court very pertinently points out that the word "Consumer" includes any person whose premises had been connected with electricity for the purpose of receiving energy as per the decision of this Court in State v. Santhana Kumar [2004 MLJ (Cr.) 450 (Mad)], one cannot ignore the important fact that Sections 2(3) & 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act of 1978 defines the terms Debtor and Dues as under: 2 (3) "debtor" means a person by whom any dues are payable. 2 (2) "dues" means any sum payable to the Board on account of-- (i) consumption of Electrical energy supplied; or (ii) any remuneration, rent or other charges for hire, inspection, test, installation, connection repairs, maintenance or removal of any electric meter, electric machinery, control gear, fittings, wires or apparatus for lighting, heating, cooling or motive power or for any other purpose for which electricity can or may be used, or any industrial or agricultural machinery operated by electricity; or (iii) price of any such goods as aforesaid taken on loan but not returned." 13. As far as the present case is concerned, the First Respondent/writ Petitioner is not a person who had committed theft of energy. As far as the present case is concerned, the First Respondent/writ Petitioner is not a person who had committed theft of energy. In reality, one Sengalammal (previous tenant) was alleged to have committed the theft of electricity and in fact, the allotment order of the second respondent/Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board dated 31.12.2005 speaks of payment of advance of six months monthly rent and other conditions which was complied with by the First Respondent/writ Petitioner. However, for the theft of electricity/energy committed by the previous tenant of the second respondent viz., Sengalammal, the First Respondent/writ Petitioner cannot be mulcted with liability to pay a sum of Rs. 15,53,975/- together with interest as penalty as stated in the impugned order dated 17.03.2011 passed by the Appellant/TNEB. 14. A closure scrutiny of Regulations 17(9)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 (brought about by means of amendment through Notification No. TNERC/SC/7-25, dated 18.03.2011) indicates that it only speaks of 'in case of service connections in a premises, which have been disconnected/dismantled for defaults in payment of dues whatsoever and if such service connections are to be reconnected or new service connections are to be obtained by other persons in such premises either by purchase or transfer or lease basis, the Distribution Licensee shall reconnect such service connections or effect new service connections, as the case may be, in such premises only after payment of dues attributed to such premises by the applicant'. 15. In the instant case on hand, the First Respondent/writ Petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 11,820/- representing six months rents at the rate of Rs. 1970/- per month to the Estate Officer and in fact, the second respondent/Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board also granted no objection for providing electricity connection to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Also, it is the stand of the First Respondent/writ Petitioner that she paid a sum of Rs.2383/- to the Second Respondent/Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board towards monthly rent and other incidental charges. 16. It cannot be gainsaid that ingredients of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 confers power upon the Electricity Board for disconnection to electricity supply for failure for payment of amount for consumption of electricity supply. 16. It cannot be gainsaid that ingredients of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 confers power upon the Electricity Board for disconnection to electricity supply for failure for payment of amount for consumption of electricity supply. The Learned counsel for the First Respondent/Writ Petitioner contends that the demand made by the Appellant/Electricity Board in regard to the penalty together with interest as claimed in the impugned order dated 17.03.2011 of the Appellant/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is barred by law of limitation as per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which speaks to the following effect "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section 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." 17. At this stage, this Court very relevantly points out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri and others [ 2010 (9) SCC 145 ] wherein, at page 151 in para 14 it is observed and held as follows: "14. The Appellant did not demand the alleged arrears, when the 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 16.01.1995 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." 18. Therefore, in the present case, the fact of the matter is that the First Respondent/writ Petitioner by means of an order dated 31.12.2005 was allotted a shed bearing No. 915, 28th street, B.V. Colony, Vyasarpadi, Chennai-39 and she is engaged in a small trade of packing salt in small polythene bags and sell the same in retail. Moreover, electricity supply is necessary for her small business and as such, the impugned order dated 17.03.2011 passed by the Appellant/First Respondent recovering the First Respondent/writ Petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. Moreover, electricity supply is necessary for her small business and as such, the impugned order dated 17.03.2011 passed by the Appellant/First Respondent recovering the First Respondent/writ Petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 15,53,975/- together with interest to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and only when she is willing to pay the aforesaid amount, the new service connection in her name would be considered is not legally a tenable one in the eye of law because of the simple reason for theft of energy or for the benefit enjoyed by a person in regard to the theft of electricity only that particular person can be considered to be an accused person and against whom the Appellant/First Respondent/TNEB can proceed in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. But the First Respondent/writ Petitioner by no stretch of imagination be called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 15,53,975/- with interest to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and putting a precondition in regard to the above said payment by the Appellant/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is not correct and legally valid one in the eye of law based on the reason that the First Respondent/writ Petitioner had not committed theft of electricity or energy or even benefited by the theft of electricity which was detected on 19.04.2001 and in fact, the previous tenant Sengalammal was alone responsible for the same in regard to her electricity connections A/c.67-17-584. Also that, the First Respondent/writ Petitioner who is not at all connected with the previous tenant of the Second respondent/Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be imposed with a liability of erstwhile tenant in the absence of any agreement between her and the Electricity supplier, more so when the theft of energy was purportedly detected on 19.04.2001 in A/c.67-17-584, wherein, the theft of energy detected was used by the erstwhile tenant namely, Sengalammal. 19. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the demand/claim made by the Appellant/First Respondent through its letter No. AE/O&M/V.Va. No. 53, dated 17.03.2011, claiming a sum of Rs. 15,53,975/- towards theft of energy charges as penalty from the First Respondent/writ Petitioner is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law and to that effect, we concur with the view taken by the Learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition. No. 53, dated 17.03.2011, claiming a sum of Rs. 15,53,975/- towards theft of energy charges as penalty from the First Respondent/writ Petitioner is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law and to that effect, we concur with the view taken by the Learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition. However, this Court bearing in mind, Clause 17(9)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, directs the Appellant/First Respondent to issue a fresh demand notice/communication requiring the First Respondent/writ Petitioner to pay the lawful due electricity consumption charges of the previous occupier/tenant, reconnection charges or other ancillary/incidental charges by specifying the time limit as per relevant rule of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, upon payment of the said claim amount by the First Respondent/Writ Petitioner, the Appellant/TNEB is directed to reconnect/restore/provide new service connection as the case may be forthwith." 15. The Court finds that Clause 4.1.11 of the Regulations is not circumscribed by any other provisions and it could be independently enforced. Under Clause 4.1.11, when the theft charges could also be said to be the dues relating to the premises, the decision in the above said case could not be applied for the benefit of the petitioners. Learned advocate for the petitioners has also relied on one more judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Sanvik Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anothers circulated (2007 SCC OnLine Del 100). The Court having gone through the said judgment finds that it has no application to the facts of the case. 16. In view of the above discussions, the petition is required to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. The Court having gone through the said judgment finds that it has no application to the facts of the case. 16. In view of the above discussions, the petition is required to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. However, it needs to be observed that if the petitioners pay the dues of erstwhile consumer to get the electric connection at the premises purchased by them and if the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court holding first part of Clause 4.1.11 as ultra vires is not disturbed by Hon'ble Supreme Court or if respondents No. 2 and 3 succeed in getting decree in the suit filed against the erstwhile consumer and recover the outstanding dues from the erstwhile consumer, respondents No. 2 and 3 shall be required to refund the amount, if paid by the petitioners towards the outstanding dues of erstwhile consumer to the petitioners.