JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 6509 of 2019 Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before entering the issue involved in this writ petition appropriate order may be passed in I.A. No. 6509 of 2019 which has been filed for seeking amendment in the prayer portion of the writ petition to the effect to grant leave to the petitioner to incorporate the prayer as has been described at paragraph – 3 of the instant interlocutory application which reads hereunder as : 3. That in view of the aforesaid objections, it has become necessary to amend the writ petition in the following manner: (i) At page 3 after Serial No.6, the following party may be added as Respondent No.7: “Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission having its office at 3rd Floor, Sainik Bhawan, Main Road, P.O. and P.S. Hindpiri, District-Ranchi.” (ii) Further at page 4 after completion of paragraph 1, Paragraph 1A may be inserted in the following manner : “Para-1A. For issuance of appropriate Writ/ order/direction from this Hon’ble Court for a declaration that Regulation 5.3.3 of Jharkhand Electricity Supply Regulation, 2015 is ultra vires to Section 55(1)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act as the liability to pay all public charges is upon the seller and contrary to that the Regulation has casted a duty upon the purchaser to verify the dues and also ultra vires to provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003”; (iii) That likewise in the prayer portion of the writ petition at page 21 after the completion of prayer 1, the following prayer may be added as Para-1A-“Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue and appropriate Writ/order/direction from this Hon’ble Court for a declaration that Regulation 5.3.3 of Jharkhand Electricity Supply Regulation, 2015 is ultra vires to Section 55(1)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act as the liability to pay all public charges is upon the seller and contrary to that the Regulation has casted a duty upon the purchaser to verify the dues and also ultra vires to provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003”; 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision made under Regulation 5.3.3 of the Jharkhand Electricity Supply Regulation, 2015 is ultra vires to Section 55(1)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act as the liability to pay all public charges is upon the seller and contrary to that the Regulation has casted a duty upon the purchaser to verify the dues and also ultra vires to provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 3. This Court, before delving into the merit of the interlocutory application, wants to deal with the scope and object of the amendment to be incorporated in the writ petition. 4. There is no dispute about the settled position of law that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Code of Civil Procedure is not strictly applicable but the principle pertaining to the provision of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable. It is also admitted that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India no provision has been provided to seek amendment of the prayer of the writ petition. Since the petitioner is seeking amendment of the prayer by filing interlocutory application invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the principle as has been provided under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable and therefore it is necessary to deal with the object and scope of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads hereunder as :- “Order VI 17. Amendment of pleadings. – The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 5. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the amendment in the suit can be allowed at any stage of the suit but subject to the condition that the nature of suit may not be allowed to be changed, the party who is seeking amendment in the plaint is duty bound to explain to the court with due diligence as to what prevented him to bring the aforesaid fact at the time of filing of the plaint, the question of limitation is also to be told i.e. if the relief which is being sought for suffers from period of limitation and if a fresh suit cannot be filed due to bar of the period of limitation, the same cannot be allowed to be questioned by way of amendment since the amendment if allowed, would relate back to the date of filing of the plaint and further the amendment cannot be allowed to be incorporated if the party wants to resile from the statement made either in the plaint or in the written statement. 6. Prior to amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure i.e., prior to 01.07.2002, the amendment as per the provisions cannot be allowed to be incorporated after commencement of the suit i.e., after framing of issues but in the amendment incorporated in the C.P.C. effective from 01.07.2002 whereby and whereunder a condition has been inserted under Order VI Rule 17 that if an amendment is necessary to be allowed, the party is supposed to explain to the court by showing sufficient cause pertaining to due diligence as to what prevented said party in not incorporating such documents or the prayer at the time of filing of the plaint. The whole object of the amendment as has been provided under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. is that there may be proper adjudication of the issues but subject to certain conditions as referred hereinabove and further in the garb of the amendment the proceeding may not be unnecessarily allowed to be delayed. 7. This Court has examined the amendment sought for by the petitioner by going through the contention raised by the petitioner in the instant interlocutory application wherefrom it is evident that the petitioner has questioned the provision of Regulation 5.3.3. 7. This Court has examined the amendment sought for by the petitioner by going through the contention raised by the petitioner in the instant interlocutory application wherefrom it is evident that the petitioner has questioned the provision of Regulation 5.3.3. of Jharkhand Electricity Supply Regulation, 2015 which provides a provision that where the applicant has purchased an existing property whose electricity connection has been disconnected, it shall be the applicant’s duty to verify that the previous owner has paid all dues to the distribution licensee and obtained a no-dues certificate from him and the new owner is only to approach before the concerned authority for getting the electricity connection afresh supported by the no-dues certificate. This Court has gone across the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the impugned order wherein the reference of the provision of Regulation 5.3.3 of the Code has been made but no such prayer for quashing the said provision as contained in the said regulation has been made. 8. The question which is to be seen by this Court as to whether the amendment, if allowed, will change the nature of the writ petition and is in consistent with the pleading made therein. It is evident from the pleading made in the writ petition that specific stand has been taken with respect to regulation contained in Regulation 5.3.3 as also the impugned order recorded the reason of applicability of the aforesaid provision and taking ground to that effect the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for granting fresh electricity connection, therefore, this Court is of the view that if the amendment sought for by the writ petitioner in the instant interlocutory application would be allowed, the nature and character of the writ petition will not be changed, rather, if not be allowed, it will nothing but will lead to multiplicity of proceeding since the petitioner will challenge the said regulation by filing a separate petition by invoking the jurisdiction of the appropriate forum, therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to allow the amendment as sought for in the instant interlocutory application on the basis of the reasons recorded hereinabove. 9. In the result, the prayer made in the interlocutory application is allowed and the same is made part of the writ petition along with the pleadings contained in the instant interlocutory application. W.P.(C) No. 3663 of 2017 10. 9. In the result, the prayer made in the interlocutory application is allowed and the same is made part of the writ petition along with the pleadings contained in the instant interlocutory application. W.P.(C) No. 3663 of 2017 10. The writ petition now contains two reliefs - (i) For quashing the decision taken by the authority as contained in letter No. 1447 EEE/S/JSR dated 31.05.2017, as contained in Annexure-5, issued by the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the said authority has refused to grant new electric connection to the petitioner’s premises unless and until the previous dues against the existing premises is cleared to the Board; and (ii) For quashing of the provision as contained in Regulation 5.3.3 of the Supply Code, 2015 (as per the relief added by way of allowing the interlocutory application as referred hereinabove). 11. Before answering the issue as has been raised by the petitioner, certain facts needs to be incorporated hereunder that the petitioner has purchased the landed property measuring 1 Bigha, 3 Katthas and 5 Dhur i.e. 38.35 decimals being New Plot No. 55/1725 under New Khata No. 158 corresponding to old portion of Plot No. 6 under Old Khata No. 33 situated at Mouza Bayangbil, Thana No. 1184 within P.S. Sundarnagar, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum by Sale Deed No. 2556 dated 29.03.2011 from one Sunil Kumar Bhalotia as would appear from the registered sale deed which has been annexed as Annexure – 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner, after purchase of the said land, has made an application on 30th September, 2016 before the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Karandih, Jamshedpur along with a copy of the sale deed and affidavit for getting a fresh electric connection over the landed property in question but the petitioner was informed that there are dues of Rs.8,87,968/-against M/s. Bhalotia Steel Industries being Connection No. NHJ-52 and for which a certificate case No.698/1998-99 has also been filed before the Certificate Officer at Karandih. The decision taken on the said communication has prompted the petitioner to file writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6323 of 2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.11.2016 with a direction to the Electrical Executive Engineer to pass necessary orders within three weeks, in terms thereof, the petitioner has been communicated with an order on 31.05.2017 (Annexure-5) by which the electric connection has been allowed to be given subject to clearance of the dues existing on the premises, against which decision, the present writ petition has been filed. 12. Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while questioning the decision of the respondent authorities, has raised the grounds that even accepting that the Supply Code of 2015 incorporates a provision that the dues pertaining to erstwhile owner is to be cleared by subsequent purchaser, but the said Code having come into being with effect from 7th September, 2015 and since the petitioner has purchased the landed property in question on 29.03.2011 and as such the provision of the Code will not be implemented with retrospective effect and secondly he has raised the issue that since he has purchased the property by way of transfer, as such, the liability which was upon the erstwhile owner cannot be shifted upon the petitioner. 13. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has advanced his argument by submitting that a fresh connection which is now being sought for by the petitioner can only be given subject to the compliance of the provision of Regulation 5.3.3 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2015 which contains a provision that before getting the fresh connection, a new ‘no-dues certificate” before change in ownership of the property is to be obtained by the new owner and it is only upon such certificate if produced, then only the new connection can be provided but the petitioner has not taken any endeavor to get the “no-dues certificate” and as such the decision has been taken in pursuance to the provision of Regulation 5.3.3 as contained in Electricity Supply Code, 2015. Hence, the same suffers from no infirmity. 14. Hence, the same suffers from no infirmity. 14. The Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned decision as contained in letter No. 1447 EEE/S/JSR dated 31.05.2017, deems it fit and proper to first consider the legality and propriety of the provision as contained under Regulation 5.3.3 of the Supply Code, 2015 since the basis of refusing fresh electricity connection in favour of the petitioner, as has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 31.05.2017, is the provision as contained in Regulation 5.3.3 of the Supply Code. 15. It needs to refer herein that the Electricity Act enacted in the backdrop of dismal performance of various State Electricity Boards and alarming decline in the availability of power necessary for domestic, agricultural, and industrial sectors. Before the enactment of the Electricity Act, the electricity supply industry was governed by the Electricity Act, 1910; the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998. The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 mandated the creation of the Electricity Board for every State. The State Electricity Boards had the responsibility of arranging the supply of Electricity in the State. 16. Over a period of time, the performance of State Electricity Boards deteriorated on account of various factors including their inability to take decisions on tariffs in a professional and independent manner. The Electricity Act, contains the provision of Section 126 for making approval, professional and final assessment against which an appeal is to be filed under Section 127. The alternative mode by way of constituting a forum for adjudicating the dispute arising out of electricity bill has been made out by way of constituting the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. The Supply Code has been formulated in view of the power conferred under Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 under which a provision has been made as Clause 14 containing therein the provision to file an appeal by the party who is aggrieved with the order passed by the Forum wherein the period of limitation has been provided which is to be filed within the maximum period of 60 days. 17. 17. The brief analysis of the scheme of the Electricity Act shows that it is a self-contained comprehensive legislation, which not only regulates generation, transmission and distribution of electricity by public bodies and encourages public sector participation in the process but also ensures creation of special adjudicatory mechanism to deal with the grievance of any person aggrieved by an order made by an adjudicating officer under the Act, except under Section 127 or an order made by appropriate commission. 18. The State Electricity Regulatory Commission has come out with a Supply Code in the year 2004 wherein there is no provision to deal with a situation of a case of such nature wherein a consumer is selling out the landed property having dues to be paid to the Board but no such liability would be casted upon the subsequent purchaser and in absence of any provision in that regard the subsequent purchasers have started taking advantage which warranted the Regulatory Commission to come out with a new Code incorporated and enacted in the year 2015 known as the Electricity Supply Code, 2015 which contains a provision as contained under Regulation 5.3.3 which reads hereunder as :- “5.3.3 Purchase of existing Property : Where the applicant has purchased an existing property whose electricity connection has been disconnected, it shall be the applicant’s duty to verify that the previous owner has paid all dues to the Distribution Licensee and obtained a “no-dues certificate” from him. In case such “no-dues certificate” has not been obtained by the previous owner before change in ownership of property, the new owner may approach the Distribution Licensee for such a certificate. The Distribution Licensee shall acknowledge receipt of such request and shall either intimate in writing the dues outstanding on the premises, if any or issue a “no dues certificate” within 1 month from date of receipt of such application. In case the Distribution Licensee does not intimate the outstanding dues or issue a “no-dues certificate” within this time, new connection to the premises shall not be denied on grounds of outstanding dues of the previous consumer. In such an event, the Distribution Licensee shall have to recover the dues from previous consumer as per provisions of law.” The same has been enacted by way of a public policy to achieve the object of the new Electricity Act, 2003. 19. In such an event, the Distribution Licensee shall have to recover the dues from previous consumer as per provisions of law.” The same has been enacted by way of a public policy to achieve the object of the new Electricity Act, 2003. 19. The said provision has been questioned by the petitioner under the power of judicial review conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The basic principle of judicial review is that it is only the decision making process and not the merits of the decision which is review able unless the decision or action of the administrative authority is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality, irregularity or a decision is such no reasonable person on proper application of mind would take such decision. However, the Court would not substitute its own opinion. In the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 it is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that rights of appeal are always statutory whereas judicial review on the other hand is the exercise of the Court’s inherent power to determine whether the action is lawful or not and to award suitable relief. The Court does not require statutory authority for the purpose of review. Judicial review is the exercise of the Court’s inherent power to determine whether the impugned action is lawful or not and to award suitable relief. In the case of S.R.Bommai and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (1994) 3 SCC 1 it has been held that in judicial review, the Court is not concerned with the merits of the decision under review but the manner in which decision has been taken or the order has been made. The duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality, propriety or regularity of the procedure adopted by the decision making authority. Thus, the grounds of review are illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. Judicial review is the power of the Courts to determine the constitutionality of legislative act in a case instituted by the aggrieved person. It is the power of the Court to declare the action void on the ground of constitutionality. Thus, the grounds of review are illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. Judicial review is the power of the Courts to determine the constitutionality of legislative act in a case instituted by the aggrieved person. It is the power of the Court to declare the action void on the ground of constitutionality. The Courts in exercise of power of judicial review of legislation would not ordinarily determine the merit of the legislation by entering into a broad question as to whether the materials placed before the legislature were sufficient for bringing out the legislation in question or not. It is beyond the powers of the Court. Reference in the judgment rendered in the case of State of Kerala & Another Vs. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala reported in (2009) 8 SCC 46 . 20. By virtue of the provision as contained under Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Supply Code is to be formulated by the State Commission and the power of the State Commission has been provided under the provision of Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which confers power upon the State Commission to make regulations consistent with this Act and the rules generally to carry out the provisions of this Act. In pursuance to the aforesaid provision, the regulation as contained under Regulation 5.3.3 has been enacted by making a provision of getting no dues certificate from the subsequent purchaser to enclose the said certificate along with the application if filed for getting fresh electricity connection upon the premises in question. The basic purpose of the said regulation is that the licensee may not be allowed to put at loss due to the fault committed on the part of the erstwhile owner of the premises. 21. It is the settled position of law that any sub-ordinate legislation or part thereof which does not conform to the object, scheme and provisions of the parent Act under which it is made is invalid, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. P. Krishnamurthy and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 517 wherein at paragraph 15 it has been held which reads hereunder as :- “15. P. Krishnamurthy and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 517 wherein at paragraph 15 it has been held which reads hereunder as :- “15. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a sub-ordinate Legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognized that a sub-ordinate legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds : (a) Lack of legislative competence to make the sub-ordinate legislation. (b) Violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India. (d) Failure to conform to the Statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act. (e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment. (f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where the court might well say that the legislature never intended to give authority to make such rules).” In the case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 641 it has been held therein that a piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature. Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition it may also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. That is because subordinate legislation must yield to plenary legislation. It may also be questioned on the ground that it is unreasonable, unreasonable not in the sense of not being reasonable, but in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary. In the case of Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (1989) 4 SCC 187 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the validity of a sub-ordinate legislation is open to question if it is ultra vires the Constitution or the governing Act or repugnant to the general principles of the laws of the land or is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair-minded authority could ever have made it. It was further held that Rules are liable to the declared invalid if they are manifestly unjust or oppressive or outrageous or directed to be unauthorized and/or violative of general principles of law of the land or so vague that it cannot be predicted with certainty as to what it prohibited or so unreasonable that they cannot be attributed to the power delegated or otherwise discloses bad faith. In the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2009) 16 SCC 569 the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to lay down at paragraph-59 which reads hereunder as :- “59. When the legislative policy is reflected in a statutory provision, the Court, while being called upon to determine as to whether the same has been complied with or not, must apply the rule of purposive construction. It is idle, in a case of this nature, to contend that as the element of additional price paid under Clause 5A of the Order and SAP had not been specifically provided for in Section 3(3-C), they should be kept out of consideration for the purpose of determination of the price of levy sugar. If the actual price payable to the cane growers is absolutely relevant for determining the price of levy sugar, we have no doubt in our mind that consideration of the said elements would come either under clause (b) or clause (d) of Section 3(3-C) of the Act. It was so held in Malaprabha(1). It is interesting to note that the Constitution Bench of this Court in U.P. Coop. Cane Unions Federations rejected a contention raised by the parties that in the event the State is held to have the legislative competence to impose the same, it will have an adverse effect on the price of levy sugar required to be determined under Section 3(3-C) of the Act as noticed supra”. 22. It is in the light of the aforesaid settled position of law, the question of legality and propriety of the Regulation 5.3.3 has been scrutinized by this Court by taking into consideration the object of the principal Act. 22. It is in the light of the aforesaid settled position of law, the question of legality and propriety of the Regulation 5.3.3 has been scrutinized by this Court by taking into consideration the object of the principal Act. As has been referred hereinabove, the need for enactment of a new Act in the year 2003 has been felt in the background of the facts that the performance of the State Electricity Boards deteriorated on account of various factors including their inability to take decision on tariff in a professional and independent manner. The Electricity Act contains the provision of Section 126 that against provisional and final assessment an appeal is to be filed under Section 127. An alternative mode by constituting a forum for adjudicating the dispute arising out of the electricity bill has been provided by way of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. The Supply Code has been formulated in view of Electricity Act, 2003. Thus, the basic purpose for enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003 is to allow the licensee to survive. The survival is on the ground by putting effective measures in making recovery of the amount which is to be paid by the consumers. The Supply Code has taken care of, with respect to this particular aspect of the matter, by coming out with a provision as contained under Regulation 5.3.3 of the Supply Code of the year 2015 since the same was not available in the Supply Code of the year 2004. The basic purpose is to recover the amount which is to be paid by the consumers on account of consuming the electricity, even the consumption if made by the erstwhile occupier or owner of the premises in question. The basic object for enactment of the provision as contained under Regulation 5.3.3 is to recover the amount which is to be paid by the consumer who has used the electricity, therefore, the said provision is strictly to achieve the object and aim of the Electricity Act, 2003. The basic object for enactment of the provision as contained under Regulation 5.3.3 is to recover the amount which is to be paid by the consumer who has used the electricity, therefore, the said provision is strictly to achieve the object and aim of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is for the reason that if the erstwhile owner, who has used the electricity, is selling it out in favour of the subsequent purchaser, who, in case of making an application for getting fresh electricity connection, if not required to make payment for the use of electricity by the erstwhile consumer upon the premises, it will nothing but accelerate the loss to the licensee and if that would be allowed to be done, the basic object of enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003 will frustrate and no purpose would be served in the decision taken by the legislature in repealment of the earlier statutory provision which has been superseded by virtue of the Electricity Act, 2003. 23. The petitioner has questioned the aforesaid provision of regulation as contained under Regulation 5.3.3 but as is evident from the pleadings made in the interlocutory application which has been made part of the writ petition, no such ground has been pleaded warranting this Court to come to the finding about the unconstitutionality of the aforesaid provision said to be not in consonance with the object of principal Act. This Court is of the view that merely because the petitioner has made an application by virtue of transfer of premises in question in his favour by the erstwhile occupier of the premises in question, the provision made under Regulation 5.3.3 cannot be said to be improper causing no prejudice to the petitioner since the petitioner at the time of purchase of the said property ought to have verified this aspect of the matter with respect to any liability on the premises in question but he has failed to do so and after purchase of the property he wants to get a fresh electricity connection by denying his liability to be paid by him. 24. 24. Further, the reference needs to be made of the definition of “consumer” as provided under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which reads hereunder as :- “"consumer" means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;” Likewise, the definition of “premises” which has been provided under Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads hereunder as:- “premises” includes any land, building or structure” If the definition of consumer would been seen, it would be evident that the “consumer” means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes “any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be”. Therefore, the electricity connection is to be provided in favour of a person or a premises. The premises includes any land, building or structure. 25. Therefore, the electricity connection is to be provided in favour of a person or a premises. The premises includes any land, building or structure. 25. These two definitions thus provide and suggest that the electricity connection is to be provided in favour of a person upon a premises, meaning thereby the electricity connection is to be provided in the name of a person who will be treated to be a consumer for a premises and as such the liability of the electricity connection is having nexus with the premises and even if the consumer in whose favour the electricity line has been provided but ceases to be the owner of the said premises by virtue of selling out the said premises in favour of other party, the premises upon which the electricity connection having sought by the subsequent purchaser, the relevant consideration would be to see by the licensee as to whether the premises upon which the electricity connection is being sought by way of fresh connection, is upon the same premises in which the electricity connection was provided on earlier occasion or not and if it would be found that the premises upon which the electricity connection is being sought afresh, the liability to make payment of the earlier dues lying upon the erstwhile owner, would automatically remain there by virtue of the premises upon which the dues was there and now a fresh electricity connection is being sought. 26. Although in the Electricity Act, 2003 there is no definition of occupier but the word “occupier” has been defined in the Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2015 under the provision of Regulation 2.3(x) which means the person in occupation of the premises where energy is used or is proposed to be used. It is evident from the aforesaid definition that the person if was in occupation of the premises or is proposed to be used the premises, the same would mean as occupier. 27. It is evident from the aforesaid definition that the person if was in occupation of the premises or is proposed to be used the premises, the same would mean as occupier. 27. In view of the aforesaid legal position as also considering the object and some of the provision of the principal Act of the year 2003, the provision made under Regulation 5.3.3 cannot be said to be unfair and untransparent, rather, it has been held to be in consonance with the object and aim of the principal Act and therefore, the said provision is not to be interfered with under the power of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this issue has been answered against the petitioner. 28. The fact in hand in the case of the petitioner is that he has purchased the landed property on 29.03.2011 and thereafter has made an application for getting electricity connection vide his application dated 30th September, 2016 but the electricity connection has not been provided which prompted the petitioner to approach before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6323 of 2016 wherein this Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to approach before the appropriate authority. In terms thereof, the petitioner has approached the same authority whereby the petitioner has been communicated by referring to Regulation 5.3.3 that the electric connection will not be allowed to be given unless the dues existing on the premises are not cleared meaning thereby the provision of Regulation 5.3.3 pertains to submission of no-dues certificate which is to be issued by the Licensee. If no-dues certificate which contains the details of the dues, if any, and in absence thereof, there cannot be no-dues certificate for getting the fresh connection. The petitioner has been informed that certain dues are lying upon the connection which was over the premises in question. Dues to be paid while old premises was in the possession of the erstwhile owner. The said decision is under challenge in this writ petition. 29. The petitioner has raised two grounds first the applicability of the provision of Supply Code i.e., since the petitioner has purchased the property on 29.03.2011 and as such, the Code since has come into being on 07.09.2015 hence the provision as contained in Regulation 5.3.3 will not be applicable with retrospective effect. 30. 29. The petitioner has raised two grounds first the applicability of the provision of Supply Code i.e., since the petitioner has purchased the property on 29.03.2011 and as such, the Code since has come into being on 07.09.2015 hence the provision as contained in Regulation 5.3.3 will not be applicable with retrospective effect. 30. So far as this contention is concerned, it is not in dispute that any subordinate legislation cannot be implemented even by the legislature with retrospective effect. Power to make the statute with retrospective effect vests upon the legislature to be enacted either by the State Legislature or the Parliament. The question of applicability of statutory provisions with retrospective effect having not been said to be applicable is based upon the principle that if a right has accrued in favour of the party, the same cannot be snatched away by making a rule applicable with retrospective effect. Therefore, the question of accrued right or vested right is the paramount consideration and if the right has been accrued or vested, the statutory provision making it applicable with retrospective effect cannot be allowed to be snatched away. This Court has examined the issues as to whether any accrued right has been created merely on the basis of purchase of the land on 29.03.2011. The petitioner is questioning the decision of the respondent authorities in not providing electricity connection afresh therefore, there is no question of any accrued right. Further, petitioner although has purchased the land on 29.03.2011 but he has made an application on 30.09.2016 and as such the question would be as to which date would be taken into consideration for consideration of the electricity connection which has been sought for by the petitioner. Whether it would be the date of the purchase of the land i.e. 29.03.2011 or the date of application made for getting the connection i.e. 30.09.2016. 31. Here it would be relevant to deal with the vested/accrued right. Rights are 'vested' when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute vested rights. In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at page1397, the word 'vested' is defined as a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right, vested interest. In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at page1397, the word 'vested' is defined as a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right, vested interest. The word 'vested' is normally used where an immediate fixed right in present or future enjoyment in respect of a property is created. With the long usage the said word 'vest' has also acquired a meaning as "an absolute or indefeasible right". It had a 'legitimate' or "settled expectation" to obtain right to enjoy the property etc. Such "settled expectation" can be rendered impossible of fulfilment due to change in law by the legislature. Besides this, such a "settled expectation" or the so-called "vested right" cannot be countenanced against public interest and convenience which are sought to be served by amendment of the law. Thus, "vested right" is a right independent of any contingency. Such a right can arise from a contract, statute or by operation of law. A vested right can be taken away only if the law specifically or by necessary implication provide for such a course. In the light of the definition of the "vested right", it is evident that right accrues to person or persons attached to an institution or building or anything whatsoever, meaning thereby, if an incumbent is claiming a vested right, he is to substantiate before the court of law that the right has been created in his favour by an order passed by the competent authority in accordance with law. 32. It is not in dispute that the connection is to be provided upon the premises in question but merely on account of purchase of landed property it cannot be said that the petitioner will get an electricity connection without making an application and as such the date for consideration would be the date of making an application by a person who is seeking connection from the Licensee which is 30.09.2016 herein and hence the cause of action so far as it relates to getting the electricity connection afresh would be 30.09.2016 and therefore, it is to be seen as to whether on 30.09.2016 the provision of the Supply Code of the year 2015 has become applicable or not. 33. 33. Admittedly, the Supply Code of the year 2015 has become applicable with effect from 07.09.2015 and the application for getting electricity connection has been made on 30.09.2016 which is subsequent to the implementation of the Supply Code of the year 2015 and hence the provision under the Supply Code, 2015 will be applicable while considering the application of the petitioner since has been filed on 30.09.2016. Therefore, the ground which has been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard having no force, is accordingly rejected and the same has been accordingly answered. 34. So far as second ground is concerned, the petitioner is claiming that he is not entitled to make payment of the dues pertaining the erstwhile owner in view of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act but the question herein is that since the connection has been provided upon a premises on an application made by the erstwhile owner as such merely shifting a title from a person to another, the liability lying upon the said connection will not be waived out, keeping that fact into consideration and in order to make specific provision to that effect, the provision has been made under Regulation 5.3.3 of the Supply Code, 2015 whereby and whereunder it has been required by the applicant to get no-dues certificate from the Licensee to be submitted along with the application for getting the new electricity connection. No dues certificate pertains to showing clearance certificate about the liability of the connection which has been provided in a premises and since the specific provision is there which is well applicable in the facts and circumstances in the case and as discussed above. Therefore, the contention as has been raised by the petitioner cannot be said to have any force. 35. In view of entirety of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that decision of refusing fresh electricity connection in favour of the petitioner basing upon a provision made under Regulation 5.3.3 of the Supply Code, 2015, cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity warranting any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing a certiorari. 36. The writ petition is dismissed.