JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the writ-applicant challenging the action of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 for not issuing No Due Certificate and not giving the electric connection to the writ- applicant's property at Plot No. 111, G.I.D.C. Industrial Estate, Village: Kerala, Tal.: Dholka, Dist.: Ahmedabad on the ground that erstwhile owner M/s. Vaibhav Alloys Ltd., could not pay the amount in respect of electricity dues of the premises as on 01.02.1998. 2. The brief facts germane for the adjudication of the present writ-application as stated by the writ-applicant are as under: 2.1. The writ-applicant purchased the above-referred disputed property from M/s. Hetal Steel Corporation by registered sale deed No. 4375 of 2010 dated 03.07.2010. Since the date of purchase, the writ-applicant has not used the said property, however, the writ-applicant is now wanting to use the said property and for the said use of the property, there is requirement of electricity. The writ-applicant approached the respondent authorities to get No Due Certificate. The respondent authority by letter dated 06.10.2016 stated that a Darkhast No. 25 of 2007 was pending against M/s. Vaibhav Alloys Ltd., for recovery of Rs.3,44,14,327.50 which is pending adjudication before the competent court. 2.2. It is stated that the applicant herein approached the authorities number of times and explained the situation stating the fact that the writ-applicant is required to get the benefit of the resolution of the government of Gujarat, in dustries & Mines Department, Gandhinagar vide GFC (GIC) 102003-1711 dated 07.02.2004 and resolution No. GFC (GIC) 102003-1711 dated 21.03.2005. It is not open for the respondent authorities to recover the outstanding electricity dues of the erstwhile owner of the premises from the writ-applicant. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the above communication dated 06.10.2016, the writ-applicant is constrained to approach this Court for the following reliefs: "(A). Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and or certiorari and any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that respondent no. 2 and 3 is not entitled to claim outstanding electricity dues of erstwhile owner of the premises from petitioner. (B). Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and or certiorari and any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that respondent no. 2 and 3 is not entitled to claim outstanding electricity dues of erstwhile owner of the premises from petitioner. (B). Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and or certiorari and any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct respondent to issue no due certificate to petitioner and start electricity supply to petitioner. (C). Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and or certiorari and any other appropriate writ, order or direction to start electricity supply to petitioner during the pending, hearing, admission of this petition. (D). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant any such other and further relief's deemed just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice." SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE WRIT-APPLICANT: 4.1. Mr. Hardik B. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant submitted that the writ-applicant purchased the disputed property from M/s. Hetal Steel Corporation by a registered sale deed No. 4375 of 2010 on 03.07.2010. Mr. Shah, learned counsel further submitted that since the date of purchase he has not used the property, however, now writ-applicant is wanting to use the said property, for which supply of electricity is a must. The writ-applicant approached the respondent authority to get No Due Certificate from the respondent. in response to the said letter, the respondent authority by a communication dated 06.10.2016 stated that Darkhast No. 25 of 2007 against M/s. Vaibhav Alloys Ltd. for recovery of Rs.3,44,14,327.50 is pending. Mr. Shah, learned counsel further submitted that the writ-applicant is an auction purchaser and the writ-applicant will have the benefit of resolutions of Government of Gujarat, industries and Mines Department, Gandhiangar vide G.R. No. GFC (GC) 102003-1711-P dated 07.02.2004 and Government of Gujarat Resolution No. GFC (GC) 102003-1711-P, dated 21.03.2005. Relying on the said government resolutions, Mr. Shah, learned counsel submitted that the respondent cannot recover the outstanding electricity dues of erstwhile owner of premises. 4.2. Mr. Shah, learned counsel submitted that the writ-applicant also issued notice Ref. No.S/N/15/11.2018 dated 22.11.2018 to the respondents, however, the respondents did not reply to the said notice issued by the writ-applicant. Mr. Relying on the said government resolutions, Mr. Shah, learned counsel submitted that the respondent cannot recover the outstanding electricity dues of erstwhile owner of premises. 4.2. Mr. Shah, learned counsel submitted that the writ-applicant also issued notice Ref. No.S/N/15/11.2018 dated 22.11.2018 to the respondents, however, the respondents did not reply to the said notice issued by the writ-applicant. Mr. Shah, learned counsel further submitted that Gujarat Industrial in vestment Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Hetal Steel Corporation entered into deed of assignment cum sale deed. 4.3. Mr. Shah, learned counsel relied on the undertaking and indemnity deed at internal page-4, Para-1 and Para-3. 4.4. Mr. Shah, learned counsel further submitted that, the respondent's Darkhast is dismissed, as the respondent could not serve notice to the new address of Vaibhav Alloys Limited and it's Director. The said Darkhast was filed against the company i.e. Vaibhav Alloys Limited and it's director Mr. Sanjeev Bharodia by respondents (erstwhile owner of premises before auction). The respondent could not execute the decree dated 04.12.2006 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 284 of 1998 against Vaibhav Alloys Ltd. 4.5. Mr. Shah, learned counsel relied upon the following case of law: (I) Sanjay Balvantrai Desai and others v. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited and others reported in 2013 (1) GLR 487 . (II) Hotel Satyaketu v. Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited reported in 2017 (3) GLR 12. 4.6. in view of above submissions, Mr. Shah, learned counsel submitted that the respondent authorities be directed to start supply of the electricity by a declaration that the respondents cannot claim the erstwhile owner's property from writ-applicant and for the No Due Certificate and lastly submitted that the present writ-application be allowed. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2: 5.1. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 submitted that the respondent by letter dated 06.10.2016 informed the writ-applicant to pay the dues of Rs.3,44,14,327.50. Ms. Bhaya, learned counsel further submitted that the respondent had filed the suit against the erstwhile consumer and on decree being passed in favour of the respondent, Execution Application No. 25 of 2007 has been filed against M/s. Vaibhav Alloys Ltd., which is pending adjudication. Ms. Bhaya, learned counsel submitted that the writ-applicant purchased the subject property in question on 02.07.2010 vide sale deed which is produced at page-40. Ms. Bhaya, learned counsel submitted that the writ-applicant purchased the subject property in question on 02.07.2010 vide sale deed which is produced at page-40. The sale deed is entered into between the writ-applicant and proprietor of M/s. Hetal Steel Corporation. The respondent authority is not party to the said transaction. The respondent authority was not aware about the terms and conditions of the sale deed. She submitted that undisputedly the writ-applicant is not an auction purchaser. Therefore, the writ-applicant is liable to make payment of earlier dues. Ms. Bhaya, learned counsel submitted that the government resolution dated 07.02.2004 (pg.26) which was issued when the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board was not in existence, which is relied upon by the writ-applicant. The Electricity Act, 2003 having come into force w.e.f. 09.12.2004, the Gujarat Electricity Board is no more in existence and all such circulars/government resolutions are not in existence anymore. 5.2. Ms. Bhaya, learned counsel further submitted that admittedly the writ-applicant is not an auction purchaser, and therefore, the government resolution dated 07.02.2004 (pg.-24) Clause-5 is not applicable to the writ-applicant. The writ- applicant is therefore liable to pay the dues of erstwhile consumer. She lastly submitted that the respondent has already taken legal action by filing civil suit and also filed execution application against the erstwhile consumer. The writ-applicant has entered into private sale transaction and is therefore liable to pay the dues of erstwhile consumer. 5.3. Ms. Bhaya, learned counsel relied upon the following case of law: (I) Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. reported in 1995 (2) SCC 648 . (II) Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. reported in (1998) 4 SC 470. (III) Sona Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., v. Gujarat Electricity Board & Ors. reported in AIR 2003 GUJ 102 . (IV) Daxin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Paramount Polymers (P) Ltd., reported in 2006 (13) SCC 101. (V) Pashchimanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., & Ors. v. DVS Steel and Alloys Private Limited and Ors., reported in 2009 (1) SCC 210 . (IV) Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills reported in 2012 (13) SCC 479. (VI) Sanjay Balvantrai Desai & Ors. v. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2013 (1) GLH 363 . 6. Heard Mr. Hardik B. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant and Ms. (IV) Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills reported in 2012 (13) SCC 479. (VI) Sanjay Balvantrai Desai & Ors. v. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2013 (1) GLH 363 . 6. Heard Mr. Hardik B. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant and Ms. Lilu Bhaya, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. ANALYSIS: 7.1. It is the case of the writ-applicant that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 declined to issue No Due Certificate and the said respondents are not supplying electricity to the writ-applicant's property at Plot No. 111, G.I.D.C. Industrial Estate, Village: Kerala, Tal.: Dholka, Dist.: Ahmedabad on the ground that erstwhile M/s. Vaibhav Alloys Ltd., has not paid the amount in respect of electricity dues of the premises as on 01.02.1998. M/s. Hetal Steel Corporation purchased the property in the year 2004 in auction conducted by the government company, Gujarat Industrial in vestment Corporation Limited, Industrial and Mines Department, Government of Gujarat. The writ-applicant purchased the said property from M/s. Hetal Steel Corporation in the year 2010. The respondents refused to give electricity supply and give No Due Certificate to the writ-applicant by a communication dated 06.10.2016. The said communication dated 06.10.2016 reads thus: "6 October 2016 To M/s. SPS Tube industries 518, Phase-II, Road No. 14, G.I.D.C., Kathwada, Ahmedabad-382430. Sub.: No Due Certificate Ref.: 1- Y.L. No. NIL, dated 22.09.2016. Dear Sir, In response to your letter under ref, this is to inform you that in Plot No. 111, Kerala GIDC M/s. Vaibhav Alloys Ltd., HT No. 17266 had been made PDC w.e.f. 01.02.1998. The legal matter is pending having Darkhast No. 25/2007 with an outstanding amount of Rs.3,44,14,327.50. This is for your kind information." 7.2. It appears that the Civil Suit was instituted by the respondents against M/s. Vaibhav Alloys Limited, which came to be decreed in favour of the respondent no.2 and the Darkhast No. 25 of 2007 is pending against M/s. Vaibhav Alloys Limited for recovery of Rs.3,44,14,327.50 before the competent court. It is the case of the writ-applicant that the outstanding dues of the electricity as on 01.02.1998 was due and payable by M/s. Vaibhav Alloys Limited. The said company was declared as defaulter and failed to make the payment of loan amount of GIIC. It is the case of the writ-applicant that the outstanding dues of the electricity as on 01.02.1998 was due and payable by M/s. Vaibhav Alloys Limited. The said company was declared as defaulter and failed to make the payment of loan amount of GIIC. The GIIC took over the possession of the property under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. The said property came to be auctioned and sold to Hetal Steel Corporation. The writ-applicant purchased the said property from the Hetal Steel Corporation. 7.3. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the writ- applicant submitted that the writ-applicant cannot be denied the electric supply and cannot be refused to be given No Due Certificate, due to the outstanding dues of the erstwhile owner. The writ-applicant has relied on the deed of assignment-cum- sale deed dated 16.04.2004, wherein, para-4 reads thus: "Vendor herein shall be liable or responsible for payment of any such dues/claims, excepts sales tax, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Gujarat Electricity Board, as assets are sold on 'as is where is basis'". 7.4. The undertaking and indemnity deed in internal page- 4, Para-1, in last four lines state thus: 'GIIC shall not be liable for any other dues towards stamp duty, registration fees or to discharge other statutory liabilities or any other charges relation to the said property purchased by the purchaser save and except the liability of Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB), Sales Tax Department of the industrial concern and Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC)." 7.5. The same undertaking and indemnity deed at internal page-4, para-3 last two lines state thus: "The Sales tax dues, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation dues and Gujarat Electricity Board dues of the Industrial concern shall be subject to Government of Gujarat, industries and Mines Department, Gandhinagar vide G.R. No. GFC (GIC) 102003-1711, dated 07.02.2014." 7.6. The reliance placed by the writ-applicant cannot be taken into consideration, in view of the fact that the said sale deed was executed between the GIIC and Ms. Hetal Steel Corporation. M/s. Hetal Steel Corporation after purchasing of the said property, did not approach the respondent electricity company to get the electric connection. On the contrary, the building, plant and machinery were demolished by M/s. Hetal Steel Corporation and sold the open non-agricultural land to the writ-applicant by registered sale deed being No. 4375 of 2010 dated 03.07.2010. Hetal Steel Corporation. M/s. Hetal Steel Corporation after purchasing of the said property, did not approach the respondent electricity company to get the electric connection. On the contrary, the building, plant and machinery were demolished by M/s. Hetal Steel Corporation and sold the open non-agricultural land to the writ-applicant by registered sale deed being No. 4375 of 2010 dated 03.07.2010. There is no privity of contract between the writ-applicant and GIIC, and therefore, the said sale deed relied upon by the writ-applicant cannot be relied upon by the writ- applicant for seeking No Due Certificate and/or new electricity connection from the respondent authority. 7.7. Though, Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant heavily relied upon the government resolution dated 07.02.2004 (pg.26) which was issued when the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board was in existence. in view of this Court, the Electricity Act, 2003 having come into existence w.e.f. 09.12.2004, the Gujarat Electricity Board is no more in existence and all such circulars/government resolutions also ceased to exist. Even otherwise, the writ-applicant is not an auction- purchaser, and therefore, the said Clause-5 of the said government resolution would not apply to the writ-applicant. The writ-applicant is therefore liable to pay the dues of erstwhile consumer. The respondent filed Civil Suit against the erstwhile owner, which came to be decreed in favour of the respondent and Execution No. 25 of 2007 is pending against the erstwhile consumer. The writ-applicant has entered into the private sale transaction by sale deed dated 02.07.2010. It is the transaction between the writ-applicant and the erstwhile owner i.e. M/s. Hetal Steel Corporation. There is no privity of contract between the respondent- electricity company and the writ-applicant. Even considering the condition no. 2(j) of the Supply Code empowers the Gujarat Electricity Board to recover the dues of the erstwhile consumer from the potential consumer. The condition No. 2(j) was the subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 691 of 2003, the validity of the same came to be upheld, which empowered the Gujarat Electricity Board to recover the dues of the earlier consumer from the potential consumer. Condition No. 2 (j) of the Supply Code, reads thus: Recovery of old dues: "Reconnection or new connection for any premises, where there are arrears of the Board pending from the consumer/occupier, shall not be entertained. Condition No. 2 (j) of the Supply Code, reads thus: Recovery of old dues: "Reconnection or new connection for any premises, where there are arrears of the Board pending from the consumer/occupier, shall not be entertained. The new successor/occupier has to clear these dues of the previous consumer before the application of successor/occupier is processed for supply of electricity. If the Board, at a later date, gets the full or part of these dues from the previous consumer, the amount shall be refunded to the successor/occupier after adjusting the costs including legal expenses to recover such arrears and the refund shall bear no interest." 7.8. Under the Electricity Act, 2003 the power to frame regulations, terms and conditions of the supply vest with the Gujarat Electricity City Regulatory Commission under Section 50 thereof. Accordingly, the Gujarat Electricity City Regulatory Commission (GECRC) framed the Supply Code, 2005. Clause 4.1.11 thereof provides that distribution licensee insist for payment of dues of earlier consumer from the potential consumer. The said clause 4.1.11 reads thus: "An application for new connection, reconnection, addition or reduction of load, change of name, shifting of service line need not be entertained unless 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." 7.9. in 2015, the GECRC framed the new Supply Code, 2015, under which Clause-4.30 provides for recovery of earlier dues from the new applicant and in case the licensee after appropriate legal remedy get full or part of the dues of the previous owner/consumer or 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. Clause-4.30 reads thus: "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 or part of the dues from the previous consumer/owner or 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." POSITION OF LAW: 8.1. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the writ- applicant placed reliance on the decision in the case of Sanjay Balvantrai Desai and others v. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. and others reported in 2013 (1) GLR 487 . The said judgment is stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (c) No. 3787 of 2012 by an order dated 11.12.2012. 8.2. The condition no. 2(j) of the conditions of supply of Gujarat Electricity Board which was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 691 of 2003 and allied matters in case of M/s. Krishna industries v. G.E.B. upheld the validity of the condition no.2(j) of the Conditions of Supply, which empowered the then Electricity Board to recover the dues of the earlier consumer from the potential consumer. 8.3. The very issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited and another v. M/s. Srigdhaa Beverages reported in M/s. AIR 2020 SC 2676 , paras-7 to 15 reads thus: "7. A writ petition was filed by the respondent before the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh seeking quashing of these demands predicated on a reasoning that as a subsequent purchaser, the respondent was not responsible for the dues of the earlier owner, and in that behalf relied upon the judgments of this Court in Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr., (1995) 2 SCC 648 and Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (through its CMD) & Ors. v. Gopal Agarwal & Ors., (2018) 12 SCC 644 . Reliance on these judgments persuaded the learned single Judge to issue directions quashing the demand of appellant No.1. The appeal filed before the Division Bench against this order was also dismissed on 30.4.2018. 8. v. Gopal Agarwal & Ors., (2018) 12 SCC 644 . Reliance on these judgments persuaded the learned single Judge to issue directions quashing the demand of appellant No.1. The appeal filed before the Division Bench against this order was also dismissed on 30.4.2018. 8. We have examined the submissions in the contours of the aforesaid controversy, and take note of the fact that in the case of Isha Marbles, (supra) the sale was in pursuance of Section 29(1) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, but the important aspect was that there was no clause specifically dealing with the issue of electricity dues or such other dues, as in the present auction notice. This Court elucidated the position in the context of Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910, to emphasise that under Section 2(c) of the Electricity Act, a consumer means any person who is supplied with energy, and since liability to pay electricity dues is fastened only on the consumer, at the relevant time, the purchaser was not the consumer. It has also been stated that in the absence of consumption of electricity, the subsequent purchaser was merely seeking reconnection without there being any statutory dues towards consumption charges. We had specifically posed a question to the learned counsel for the respondent in the order dated 15.11.2019, that whether, in the context of the judicial pronouncements sought to be relied upon, there was a 3 specific clause in the nature of Clause 26 as in the present E-auction sale notice, which absolved the Authorized official of various dues including "electricity dues". On the conspectus of the judgments referred to by the respondent, there were no such clauses in the cases in question. 9. We may also notice that there have been subsequent judicial pronouncements dealing with this aspect of electricity dues. A three Judge Bench of this Court has held that the dues under the terms and conditions of supply partake the character of statutory dues (Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 470 . The mere fact that agreements were entered into with every consumer only served the purpose of bringing to the notice of the consumer the terms and conditions of supply, but did not make the dues purely contractual in character. 10. The mere fact that agreements were entered into with every consumer only served the purpose of bringing to the notice of the consumer the terms and conditions of supply, but did not make the dues purely contractual in character. 10. We can draw strength from the observations of this Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Paramount Polymers (P) Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 101 where there was a similarity as in the present case, of a specific clause dealing with electricity dues. It was observed that in such a scenario if a transferee desires to enjoy the service connection, he shall (2 Judges Bench) pay the outstanding dues, if any, to the supplier of electricity and a reconnection or a new connection shall not be given to any premises where there are arrears on account of dues to the supplier unless they are so declared in advance. 11. We may also notice that as an auction purchaser bidding in an "as is where is, whatever there is and without recourse basis", the respondent would have inspected the premises and made inquiries about the dues in all respects. The facts of the present case, as in the judgment aforesaid, are more explicit in character as there is a specific mention of the quantification of dues of various accounts including electricity dues. The respondent was, thus, clearly put to notice in this behalf. 12. The same view in case of a similar clause has been taken in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v. DVS Steels and Alloys Private Limited & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 210 It has been further observed that if any statutory rules govern the conditions relating to sanction of a connection or supply of electricity, the distributor can insist upon fulfillment of the requirements of such rules and regulations so long as such rules and regulations or the terms and conditions are not arbitrary and (2009) 1 SCC 210 (2 Judge Bench) unreasonable. A condition for clearance of dues cannot per se be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary. 13. A condition for clearance of dues cannot per se be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary. 13. We may notice a slightly contra view in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 145 in a given scenario where the pendency of electricity dues was not mentioned in the terms & conditions of sale, and it was held in those facts that the dues could not be mulled on to the subsequent transferee. 14. We may notice that in Special official, Commerce, North Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa (NESCO) v. Raghunath Paper Mills Private Limited & Anr., (2012) 13 SCC 479 a distinction was made between a connection sought to be obtained for the first time and a reconnection. in that case, no application had been made for transfer of a service connection from the previous owner to the auction-purchaser, but in fact, a fresh connection was requested. in light of the regulations therein, previous dues had to be cleared only in the case of a reconnection. Hence, the respondents were held to be free from electricity liability. This Court in Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (through its CMD) & Ors., (supra) found that the facts were similar to (2 Judge Bench) (2 Judge Bench) case, and thus followed the same line. 15. We have gone into the aforesaid judgments as it was urged before us that there is some ambiguity on the aspect of liability of dues of the past owners who had obtained the connection. There have been some differences in facts but, in our view, there is a clear judicial thinking which emerges, which needs to be emphasized: A. That electricity dues, where they are statutory in character under the Electricity Act and as per the terms & conditions of supply, cannot be waived in view of the provisions of the Act itself more specifically Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in pari materia with Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910), and cannot partake the character of dues of purely contractual nature. B. Where, as in cases of the E-auction notice in question, the existence of electricity dues, whether quantified or not, has been specifically mentioned as a liability of the purchaser and the sale is on "AS IS WHERE IS, WHATEVER THERE IS AND WITHOUT RECOURSE BASIS", there can be no doubt 10 (supra) that the liability to pay electricity dues exists on the respondent (purchaser). C. The debate over connection or reconnection would not exist in cases like the present one where both aspects are covered as per clause of the General Terms & Conditions of Supply." 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the above-referred judgments, the position of law is well settled that the subsequent purchaser is required to pay the dues of the erstwhile owner. If, any statutory rules govern the conditions relating to sanction of a connection or supply of electricity, the distributor can insist upon such fulfillment of the requirements of such rules and regulations so long as such rules and regulations or the terms and conditions are not arbitrary. Further, this Court has considered the provisions of clause-2(j) of the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Act. Clause-4.1.11 of the Supply Code, 2005 and Clause-4.30 of the Supply Code, 2015 as referred above, the new successor/occupier is required to clear the dues of the previous occupier before the application of the successor/occupier is processed for supply of electricity by the Electricity Company. Further, if the Board, at a later point of time, gets the full or part of the dues from the previous consumer, the amount shall be refunded to the successor/occupier after adjusting the costs including legal expenses to recover such arrears and the refund shall bear no interest. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above in AIR 2020 SC 2676 , while considering the judgment rendered in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v. DVS Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. held that, condition for clearance of dues cannot per-se be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary. 11. in view of the settled legal position and the provisions of the Code, the prayers as prayed for by the writ-applicant cannot be granted. This Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. Consequentially, the writ-application fails and the same is dismissed. 12. 11. in view of the settled legal position and the provisions of the Code, the prayers as prayed for by the writ-applicant cannot be granted. This Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. Consequentially, the writ-application fails and the same is dismissed. 12. As the main writ-application is dismissed, the Civil Application would not survive, and hence, the same is also dismissed.