IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6816 of 2011 ANIL KUMAR . Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS . ----------- 2. 16.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’). The petitioner is stated to be the purchaser of the premises in question under two sale deeds dated 28.7.2003 and 19.8.2009. He desires an electric connection for which he is stated to have applied on 19.9.2006. This obviously has to be read as limited to the premises under the sale deed dated 28.7.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a circular of the Board dated 15.7.2002, of the manner in which liabilities, if any, can be imposed on the purchaser of premises for past dues. The petitioner approached the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the Forum) constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003. By judgment and order dated 3.8.2010 the forum directed to provide a new electric connection within 30 days after observing the required formalities in light of the Board’s circular dated 15.7.2002. Notwithstanding the same, connection has still not 2 been provided. The petitioner then approached the Ombudsman under the Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission for non implementation of the order but due to non availability of the Ombudsman the matter has not been heard. The order of the Forum dated 3.8.2010 has attained finality and has not been questioned by the Board. Counsel for the Board submits that the petitioner himself states that he has approached the Ombudsman. No copy of the application filed before the Ombudsman has been placed on record. It is not known whether the petitioner was himself dissatisfied with the nature of relief granted by the Forum. In that event, the Board shall be justified in not acting on the order of the Forum till the matter attains finality. It is next submitted that under the Electricity Code, 2007, the petitioner cannot escape liability for the dues of the erstwhile owner. In any event of the matter, the premises purchased on 19.8.2009 fall in a separate category. The issue of the liability of a purchaser with regard to the erstwhile dues standing on the premises attributable to the erstwhile owner has been considered in detail recently by the Supreme Court in (2010) 9 SCC 145, laying down the guidelines under 3 which the liability can be imposed on the purchaser and when it cannot be. Needless to state that prima facie, the sale deed dated 28.7.2003 for which an application for a new connection is stated to have been made on 19.9.2006 will have to be considered by the Board in the background of the facts with regard to on whose part the fault lay for delaying the provisions for the connection as by a fiction of law, the date cannot be extended by a person who may have had faulted himself. In so far as the sale deed dated 19.8.2009 is concerned, quite obviously the considerations will have to be entirely different. According to the petitioner the application preferred before the Ombudsman does not question the order of the Forum dated 3.8.2010 but only seeks implementation of the same. If the order dated 3.8.2010 of the Forum has not yet been questioned by the Board before any superior forum, quite naturally subject to the nature of the application filed before the Ombudsman, it shall continue to bind the Board. The Board cannot accept the order and still refuse to comply the order. The application is disposed in light of the aforesaid discussion of the Board to consider matters, 4 grant a personal or representative hearing to the petitioner. Liberty is given to raise additional issues if any as the petitioner may be advised, whereafter the Board shall dispose off the matter by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)