JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for quashing of the impugned letter dated 15.5.2006 vide Annexure-5 with further direction to the opposite party nos. 1 to 4 to supply electricity to the industrial unit of the petitioner. 2. The factual background involved in this case is that the erstwhile employer of the petitioner-establishment M/s. Sakhi Gopal Forging Industries was seized by the Orissa State Financial Corporation in exercise of power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 hereinafter in short called as “OSFC Act, 1951” on the ground of defaulter in making payment. Following due process of law, the aforesaid industrial establishment was put to auction process, where the present petitioner being the successful bidder, there is transfer of the Industrial property in favour of the petitioner following the provisions contained in the O.S.F.C. Act, whereafter the petitioner’s establishment made an application to the opposite party No. 1 for restoration of power supply by depositing necessary dues. Finding no action in the matter of supply of electricity to the Industrial Unit of the petitioner, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 3. Shri Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioner taking aid of the provisions contained in the aforesaid Act and regulation made therein, submitted that non-supply of power to the petitioner’s establishment on account of non-clearance of the outstanding of the erstwhile employer, is improper. Taking aid of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also of this Court and for support of the decisions to the case of the petitioner, Shri Udgata, requested this Court for allowing the writ petition. 4. Shri S. Ch. Dash, learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties in absence of any counter affidavit made oral submission that for the pendency of some litigation in the Hon’ble Apex Court in the year 2006 and 2007, this Court should not take any decision in such matter till final outcome in the pending proceedings. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and after going through the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board vs. North East Fertilizers and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 648 , in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and after going through the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board vs. North East Fertilizers and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 648 , in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. Gujurat Inns Pvt. Ltd. and Others, AIR 2004 SC 2171 , in the case of Executive Engineer (Electrical) WESCO vs. Mass Tara Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2016 Ori. 49 and an unreported decision of this Court in the case of M/s. J.R.C. Recourses Pvt. Ltd. vs. Western Electricity Supply Company of Orissa in W.P. (C) No. 1626 of 2007 decided on 23.11.2017, this Court finds, the Hon’ble Apex Court is of the firm view by holding that the liability of the erstwhile owner of an industry cannot be transferred to the new owner on transfer of property by auction following statutory provisions, however, giving liberty to the Electricity Department to recover the outstanding amount if any, from the erstwhile owner. 6. Considering the copies of the orders filed by Shri S. Ch. Dash, learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties this Court finds, he has merely filed some copies involving some interlocutory developments being passed way back in the month of March & August, 2006 and in the year 2007. 7. Further, on perusal of the copies produced by Shri Dash, this Court finds, for disposal of similar matters not only by Hon’ble the Apex Court but also by several Benches of this Court, petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the decisions in the disposed of cases. 8. Under the circumstances, this Court finds, the petitioner’s case has the support of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court in the cases referred to hereinabove and therefore, while allowing the writ petition, this Court sets aside the impugned letter vide Annexure-5 and directs the opposite party nos.1 to 4 that in the event, the power supply has been given to the petitioner-establishment in the meantime following the interim direction of this Court dated 7.9.2006, the same shall continue and the petitioner will not be bothered for the outstanding involving the erstwhile employer. It will be, however, open to the contesting opposite parties to proceed for recovery of the outstanding from the previous owner, but however, following due process of law. 9. The writ petition succeeds. It will be, however, open to the contesting opposite parties to proceed for recovery of the outstanding from the previous owner, but however, following due process of law. 9. The writ petition succeeds. No cost.