ORDER : The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 08.07.2016 vide Annexure-J and also sought for mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide new connection to the extent of 1000 KVA and supply of electricity to the schedule premises situated at Bisalahalli and Haddinagundu villages, Bellary Taluk and Bellary District measuring 119 acres 62 cents. 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that, IFCI has issued a public notification for auction in respect of land under reference situated at Bisalahalli and Haddinagudu villages, Bellary Taluk and Bellary District totally measuring 119 acres 62 cents. The petitioner company participated in the auction held on 08.12.2010 and the petitioner company was the highest bidder and declared as successful bidder for a sale consideration of Rs.64.90 crores and sale certificate and possession certificate were issued in favour of the petitioner. 3. After procuring the property, the petitioner company applied for supply of electricity to respondent No.2 vide communication dated 11.05.2011. Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 19.05.2011 intimated the petitioner that erstwhile owner of the said property namely, Bellary Steels and Alloys Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BSAL’ for short) had a power supply of 400 KVA on 110 KV class having R.R.No.EHT2 and the said connection was disconnected for non-payment of electricity bill, as the erstwhile owner was liable to pay the arrears of Rs.17.36 crores to GESCOM. The said demand was purportedly made under Regulation No.4.09 (iv) of the conditions of supply of electricity of distribution licences in the State of Karnataka. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said communication dated 19.05.2011 issued by respondent No.2 approached this Court in W.P.No.63672/2011. This Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition directing respondent No.1 to pass a detailed order on the application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. 4. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner submitted his written submission. Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 08.07.2016 demanding payment of Rs.21.63 crores from the petitioner as a pre-condition to obtain supply of electricity power to the schedule premises. The petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order filed this writ petition. 5. Respondents filed statement of objections stating that petitioner has addressed a letter to respondent No.2 for supply of power. Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 08.07.2016 demanding payment of Rs.21.63 crores from the petitioner as a pre-condition to obtain supply of electricity power to the schedule premises. The petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order filed this writ petition. 5. Respondents filed statement of objections stating that petitioner has addressed a letter to respondent No.2 for supply of power. On verification, it was noticed that the petitioner company has purchased the land to an extent of 119 acres 62 cents belongs to BSAL. The said BSAL had a power supply having R.R.No.EHT2 which was discontinued for nonpayment of arrears. Respondent No.2 by letter dated 19.05.2011 clarified that as per the electricity supply regulations and the Electricity Act, the power supply will not be arranged to the premises which is having dues to the GESCOM until they are cleared. As against the communication dated 19.05.2011, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.63672/2011 and this Court vide order dated 22.04.2016 disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to appear before respondent No.1 along with written submission and respondent No.1 directed to pass the order in accordance with law. 6. Respondent No.1 after considering the contentions of the petitioner and also GESCOM, passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner is liable to pay entire arrears including interest. It is also stated that, impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is in accordance with law and there is absolutely no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner in the writ petition and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri.Gurudas S.Kannur, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.Shivaraj Bellakki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.S.Kamate learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner filed the written submission and submits that BSAL had owned 800 acres of land and in order to recover the dues, IFCI Ltd., issued a notification for auction of properties. The petitioner has purchased 119.62 acres in the auction for consideration of Rs.64.90 crores and remaining extent of 680 acres was purchased by M/s Sesa Goa. The petitioner has purchased only 14% of the entire extent of land and sale certificate was issued. The petitioner made an application to the GESCOM for supply of new electricity connection. The petitioner has purchased 119.62 acres in the auction for consideration of Rs.64.90 crores and remaining extent of 680 acres was purchased by M/s Sesa Goa. The petitioner has purchased only 14% of the entire extent of land and sale certificate was issued. The petitioner made an application to the GESCOM for supply of new electricity connection. The respondents demanded for payment of Rs.17.36 crores which was claimed as arrears from the erstwhile owner BSAL by relying on regulation 4.09. He submits that agreement with BSAL was terminated on 23.05.2011 and from perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner along with memo dated 26.08.2020 shows that as on 19.05.2011, i.e., the date on which GESCOM demanded from the petitioner, the agreement between the GESCOM and BSAL was in existence. Hence, the demand of the GESCOM under regulation 4.09 (iv) is not proper. He further submits that respondents could not have claimed for payment of the arrears of BSAL. This Court in earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.63672/2011 has observed that, term outstanding arrears in respect of premises has to be understood to mean legally recoverable outstanding arrears. If so, whether it includes the alleged arrears on account of theft of electricity committed by the erstwhile owner in the absence of any criminal prosecution or orders legally passed quantifying the liability and disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.1 to consider the application filed by the petitioner and quantify the outstanding arrears that can be recovered in accordance with law from the purchaser/petitioner in respect of the property purchased. He further submits that, from the observations made by this Court in the impugned order, the respondents have not followed the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the respondents. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Sri.B.S.Kamate submits that the petitioner being the auction purchaser, according to Regulation 4.09 conditions of supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka 2001 (in short Supply Regulation), the petitioner is liable to pay the outstanding dues, if the petitioner wants to avail the power supply. He further submits that the petitioner has not filed any application for supply of electricity. He further submits that the petitioner has not filed any application for supply of electricity. The petitioner had made a request for issue of H.T. application to avail power of 1000 KVA through new connection. The respondents issued an endorsement vide Annexure-F and the same was challenged in the writ petition. After remand and after considering the written submission submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order in accordance with law. He further submits that there is absolutely no merit in any contention raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. He further submits that erstwhile owner has challenged the orders passed against it and the order passed by the GESCOM were confirmed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the erstwhile owner. 10. In order to buttress his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. Vs M/s Srigdhaa Bevarages reported in 2020 SCC online SC 478 and submits that the petitioner is liable to pay outstanding arrears of the erstwhile owner. He submits that GESCOM have taken steps for recovery proceedings against the erstwhile owner which are available under law. He further submits that the company petition No.49/2001 is pending before this Court at Principal Bench and the respondents have filed an application for release of amount and the same is pending. The petitioner is entitled for supply of electricity subject to compliance of requirements as per Regulation 4.09(iv) of Supply Regulation. He further submits that respondents after considering the entire material on records rightly rejected the request of the petitioner. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Perused the records and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. That the BSAL was the owner of the land situated at Bisalahalli and Haddinagunda village of Bellary Taluk. That on 08.12.2010 IFCI Ltd under the SARFAESI Act issued a paper publication for sale of certain properties situated at Bisalahalli and Haddinagunda village of Bellary Taluk. 12. That the BSAL was the owner of the land situated at Bisalahalli and Haddinagunda village of Bellary Taluk. That on 08.12.2010 IFCI Ltd under the SARFAESI Act issued a paper publication for sale of certain properties situated at Bisalahalli and Haddinagunda village of Bellary Taluk. It was informed that, as per Part-II para 2.8 of tender document of IFCI for sale of Assets of M/s BSAL (under liquidation) (Sponge Iron Unit) which reads as “The unit may have certain outstanding liabilities having priority over Secured Creditors dues which are to be met by the purchaser and which will be over and above the purchase consideration. The prospective purchaser may carry out due diligence in respect of likely liabilities pertaining to the unit before submitting the tender. It may be noted that the purchaser will be responsible for meeting these liabilities, if arise, and Secured creditors will not liable to meet any such liabilities whatsoever”. 13. The petitioner after having understood the contents of the tender document participated in the auction and the petitioner company was the successful bidder and consequently IFCI Ltd. executed a sale certificate in favour of the petitioner confirming the sale of the said property to the petitioner. The petitioner after procuring the land made a request to issue fresh connection of power supply to the said property. The respondents treating the request of the petitioner as an application issued communication demanding Rs.17.6 crores from the petitioner company towards the payment of electric charges incurred by the previous consumer (BSAL) and the payment of arrears of electricity incurred by the previous consumer was made conditional precedent for providing fresh connection to the petitioner’s establishment. The endorsement is issued but it does not indicate that request of petitioner is not considered as the ground the same is not in the prescribed format. Hence, the contention of the respondents that petitioner has not made an application cannot be accepted. The petitioner challenged the said endorsement in W.P.No.63672/2011. This Court vide order dated 01.12.2015 disposed off the writ petition directing the respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner and pass detailed order after giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. As per the order passed by this Court, petitioner submitted its written submission. The respondents after considering the written submission passed the impugned order. This Court vide order dated 01.12.2015 disposed off the writ petition directing the respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner and pass detailed order after giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. As per the order passed by this Court, petitioner submitted its written submission. The respondents after considering the written submission passed the impugned order. As per Part-II, Para 2.8 of tender document and also perusal of the sale certificate executed by IFCI, the said sale is as is varies and whatever basis. 14. Now let us examine the relevant Clause 4.09(iv), which reads as under: “If any person desires to have electricity for a premises for which the power supply Agreement has been terminated (whether the service line is dismantled or not) he shall be treated as a fresh Applicant and the Licencee shall collect the outstanding arrears in respect of the said premises from such person before connection is given.” 15. A specific clause is inserted in the tender document fastening liability on the purchaser to clear the outstanding dues, under which the petitioner has purchased the property. In fact the said provision of law was challenged before the Court as unconstitutional in W.P.No.31929/1994 in the case of Sri.Krishnappa Vs. The Karnataka Electricity Board. After considering the rival contentions and relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court, this Court held that, the above said regulation is either arbitrary or unconstitutional. The provision of Regulation 4.34 is a reasonable restriction and this restriction has rational and reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved by the Board, namely, recovery of amounts due to it from the consumer of electricity. While achieving this object, the Board by its impugned regulations places a restriction of not granting fresh power supply to the same premises in respect of which if there has been an installation which is in arrears. Therefore, it can safely be said that the impugned provisions are intravires of the Act. Regulation 4.09 is similar with that of Regulation 4.34. 16. In the instant case, the erstwhile owner/previous consumer has misused the electricity and the respondents demanded back-billing charges from the erstwhile owner/previous consumer. The erstwhile owner/previous consumer being aggrieved by the demand notice issued by the KPTCL for back-billing charges of Rs.5,26,25,390/-filed writ petition in W.P.No.7112/2000. Regulation 4.09 is similar with that of Regulation 4.34. 16. In the instant case, the erstwhile owner/previous consumer has misused the electricity and the respondents demanded back-billing charges from the erstwhile owner/previous consumer. The erstwhile owner/previous consumer being aggrieved by the demand notice issued by the KPTCL for back-billing charges of Rs.5,26,25,390/-filed writ petition in W.P.No.7112/2000. This Court directed the respondents to restore the electricity supply within one week from the date of payment of Rs.75,00,000/-. As per order dated 22.03.2000, this Court remanded the matter to GESCOM. After remand, the Assistant Executive Engineer of KPTCL passed an order on 25.04.2000 holding that the petitioner is guilty of committing theft and is liable to pay the back-billing charges of Rs.5,26,25,390/-. The erstwhile owner/previous consumer being aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2000 filed writ petition in W.P.No.17767/2000. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by order dated 10.07.2003. The erstwhile owner/previous consumer challenged the order passed in W.P.No.17767/2000 in writ appeal in W.A.No.6982/2003. The said writ appeal came to be dismissed reserving liberty to the erstwhile owner/previous consumer to file an appeal before the appellate authority. The erstwhile owner/previous consumer filed an appeal before the appellate authority and also sought for waiver of deposit of 50% of back-billing charges. The appellate authority rejected the application. The erstwhile owner/previous consumer aggrieved by the order filed writ petition in W.P.No.16110/2005. The said writ petition came to be disposed of directing the petitioner to make fresh application before the Apex Body and also directed the respondents not to disrupt the power supply to the erstwhile owner/previous consumer’s unit on payment of Rs.50,00,000/-to KPTCL in two installments, which was subsequently extended. 17. The demand made by the respondents has attained finality. Chapter 4 applies to the General Procedure for Arranging Power Supply. Clause 4.02 applies for any person desirous of availing himself of power supply shall comply with the certain conditions. In the present case, the petitioner though made a request through letter, it is in the form of an application. When an application is made, the respondent/authorities are bound by the procedure prescribed in the regulations. Clause 4.02 applies for any person desirous of availing himself of power supply shall comply with the certain conditions. In the present case, the petitioner though made a request through letter, it is in the form of an application. When an application is made, the respondent/authorities are bound by the procedure prescribed in the regulations. Clause 4.09(iv) reads as under: “If any person desires to have electricity for a premises for which the power supply Agreement has been terminated (whether the service line is dismantled or not) he shall be treated as a fresh Applicant and the Licencee shall collect the outstanding arrears in respect of the said premises from such person before connection is given.” 18. Regulation 42.02 deals with misuse of electricity, which reads as under: “42.02 Misuse of Electricity: (a) If at any time, the energy supplied under one method of charging is misused for purpose for which a higher method of charging is in force, the Assessing officer shall assess the quantum of energy and difference in fixed charges for the entire period during which such unauthorized use of electrify has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection and charge at two times the Tariff applicable to the purpose for which the energy is misused. The Consumer shall pay such amount within thirty days from the date of claim, failing which, the installation is liable for disconnection and such amount shall be deemed to be arrears of electricity charges.” 19. From perusal of Regulation 42.02, if the consumer misused the electricity and the Assessment officer arrived at a conclusion and make assessment and if consumer fails to pay the same, such amount shall be deemed to be arrears of electricity charges. 20. Regulation 4.09 (iv) deals that, if the person who desires to have electricity for a premises shall pay outstanding arrears as per Regulation 42.02 and 42.05 in respect of the premises. In the present case, the previous consumer has misused the electricity and Assessment Officer arrived at a conclusion and made assessment and the previous consumer failed to pay the arrears of electricity charges. In the present case, the previous consumer has misused the electricity and Assessment Officer arrived at a conclusion and made assessment and the previous consumer failed to pay the arrears of electricity charges. Hence, the amount demanded by the GESCOM shall be treated as arrears of electricity charges for which, according to Regulation 4.09(iv), the purchaser who purchased the property is liable to pay the outstanding arrears in respect of the said premises. 21. The rights and liabilities of auction purchaser in the matter of sale of immovable property by public auction, are governed by Section 55(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which reads thus: “55. Rights & Liabilities of Buyer and Seller – In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer and the seller of immovable property respectively are subje3ct to the liabilities, and have the rights, mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property sold: (1) The seller is bound - (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) xxx (e) xxx (f) xxx (g) to pay all public charges and rent accrued due in respect of property upto the date of the sale, the interest to all incumbrances on such property due on such date, and, except where the property is sold subject to incumbrances, to discharge all incumbrances on the property then existing.” 22. Thus, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer and the seller of immovable property respectively are subjected to the liabilities, and the seller is bound to pay all the public charges and the rent accrued due in respect of the property upto the date of sale together with interest and all encumbrances on such property due on such date, except where the property is sold subject to encumbrances, to discharge all incumbrances on the property then existing. 23. Part II, para 2.8 of the tender document reads as under: “2.8 The unit may have certain outstanding liabilities having priority over secured creditors dues which are to be met by the purchaser and which will be over and above the purchase consideration. The prospective purchaser may carry out due-diligence in respect of likely liabilities pertaining to the unit before submitting the tender. The prospective purchaser may carry out due-diligence in respect of likely liabilities pertaining to the unit before submitting the tender. It may be noted that the purchaser will be responsible for meeting these liabilities, if arise, and Secured Creditors will not be liable to meet any such liabilities whatsoever.” 24. In the instant case, the petitioner cannot have any grievance whatsoever because the petitioner has purchased the property subject to the liabilities and it is made explicitly clear in the tender document as per Part-II, Para 2.8. Having accepted the responsibility to discharge, it is not open for the petitioner to contend before this Court that respondents have no right to enforce the said claim. 25. Respondents have already filed an application before the liquidator for release of the amount. The said application is pending and the respondents have also initiated proceedings against the previous consumer for recovery. The respondents would be entitled to the said arrears either from the previous consumer or from the present petitioner and they cannot get from both. If the present petitioner pays the money and gets fresh connection and in that event, respondents have to get money from the previous consumer and they are under the obligation to makeover the same to the petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Vs M/s Srigdhaa Bevarages reported in (2020) 6 SCC 404 , has held that, electricity dues, where they are statutory in character under the Electricity Act and as per the terms and conditions of supply, cannot be waived and cannot partake the character of dues of purely contractual nature. Where the existence of electricity dues, whether quantified or not, have been specifically mentioned as a liability of the purchaser in the auction notice and the sale is on “as is where is, whatever there is and without recourse basis”, the liability to pay electricity dues exists on the purchase. 26. As discussed above, from the records, the tender notification in respect of land and premises of previous consumer which was issued by the IFCI, the auction tender document contained clauses which makes it clear that there would be outstanding liabilities and the same has to be paid by the purchaser. 27. Therefore, I do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the petitioner. 27. Therefore, I do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the petitioner. The respondents after considering the material on record has rightly passed the impugned order. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is disposed of. ii) In the event, the petitioner paying the entire arrears as demanded by the respondents, the petitioner would be entitled for fresh connection of electricity. iii) If after payment of money by the petitioner, the respondents recover the money from the previous consumer, the same shall be paid to the petitioner.