JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. Factual background involved in the case is that the petitioner involved herein is a purchaser of the property involved herein from the previous owner and the purchase has been effected by virtue of certificate of sale of immovable property vide Annexure-1. Following the purchase, it appears, the petitioner had applied for electricity connection and which attempt was responded in negative by the WESCO authority on the premises of involvement of huge arrear involving Rs. 36,47,081.54/- towards Electricity dues against the previous owner. 2. Challenging the order vide Annexure-5, learned counsel for the petitioner approached this Court. Establishing his case learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the purchase of the property by the present petitioner involving a DRT proceeding, the petitioner is not responsible for the arrears involving the previous owner and it is thus contended that the WESCO authority went wrong in refusing to supply the electricity connection to the petitioner’s establishment on the premises of non-clearance of the arrear electricity dues. 3. Justifying his case learned counsel for the petitioner relying on some decisions in the case of Isha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Another, Civil Appeal No. 1420 of 1995, Bihar State Electricity Board and Others vs. Waxpol Industries and Another, Civil Appeal No. 1419 of 1995, Chairan, Bihar State Electricity Board and Others vs. Suman Packaging (P) Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 1422 of 1995, Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Abhay Kumar and Others, Civil Appeal No. 1421 of 1995, Bihar State Electricity Board vs. North East Fertilizers and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 648 in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd. and Others, AIR 2004 SC 2171 and in the case of Executive Engineer (Electrical) WESCO vs. Maa Tara Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2016 Ori. 49 , submitted that for the support of law referred to hereinabove to the petitioner’s case, this Court should interfere with the impugned order vide Annexure-5 and set aside the same. 4. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the petitioner became the owner of the property involved by virtue of a court sale following a certificate of sale of immovable property issued by the court of Recovery Officer, DRT, Cuttack. 4. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the petitioner became the owner of the property involved by virtue of a court sale following a certificate of sale of immovable property issued by the court of Recovery Officer, DRT, Cuttack. It is under the circumstance, this Court is required to answer, for the involvement of a court sale, whether the auction purchaser is liable to clear the outstanding electricity dues on the head of the previous owner? 5. Considering the materials available on record and taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in (1995) 2 SCC 648 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds, the Hon’ble Apex Court in similar situation has the following view: “56. From the above, it is clear that the High Court has chosen to construe Section 24 of the Electricity Act correctly. There is no charge over the property. Where that premises comes 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 arrears as a condition precedent to supply. What matters is the contract entered into by the erstwhile consumer with the Board. The Board cannot seek the enforcement of contractual liability against the third party. Of course, the bona fides of the sale may not be relevant. 64. Factually, it appears that there is no new entity. Hence, in this case M/s. Neo Chemicals and Metal Products Pvt. Ltd. would be liable for the past arrears.” 6. Reading of the aforesaid decision this Court finds, the Hon’ble Apex Court is of the view that since the liability particularly involving electricity dues is of the previous owner, cannot be shifted to the new owner. In paragraph no. 64, the Hon’ble Apex Court has directed that liability lies with the previous owner. 7. Considering the same situation involved in another case as reported in AIR 2004 SC 2171 the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 3 held as follows: “3. In our opinion, the present two cases are the cases of fresh connection. In paragraph no. 64, the Hon’ble Apex Court has directed that liability lies with the previous owner. 7. Considering the same situation involved in another case as reported in AIR 2004 SC 2171 the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 3 held as follows: “3. In our opinion, the present two cases are the cases of fresh connection. The learned Counsel for the respondents (auction-purchasers) have stated that they have taken fresh connections and they have no objection if their connections are treated as fresh connections given on the dates on which the supply of electricity was restored to the premises. We are clearly of the opinion that in case of a fresh connection though the premises are the same, the auction-purchasers cannot be held liable to clear the arrears incurred by the previous owners in respect of power supply to the premises in the absence of there being a specific statutory provision in that regard. Though we find some merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant calling for reconsideration of the wide propositions of law laid down in Isha Marbles’ case (supra), we think the present one is not a case for such exercise. We leave the plea open for consideration in an appropriate case.” 8. Considering the above, this Court finds, the Hon’ble Apex Court has the same view by holding that the liability to the previous owner cannot be transferred to the new owner on transfer of the property through the court process. For the decisions referred to hereinabove, this Court finds, the position as to the liability of the previous owner on account of electricity dues on the transfer of the property to a new owner through a court process is almost settled with affirming view that such liability cannot be shifted to the new owner. 9. For the above settled position of law, this Court interfering with the impugned order vide Annexure-5 sets aside the same. Since following the interim direction of this Court the petitioner-establishment has already got the electricity connection, petitioner will only be liable to clear the current dues, if any. 10. The writ petition succeeds. No cost.