IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2752 of 2010 1. M/S BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. TELECOM DISTRICT, ARA, THROUGH ITS SENIOR T.O.A(T), SHRI K.K.TRIPATHY, S/O LATE B.B.TIWARY, R/O MOH- MAHARANA PRATAP NAGAR, P.S- ARA NAWADH AND DISTT- BHOJPUR Versus 1. CHAIRMAN,BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA 2. SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA 3. ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BHOJPUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ARRAH 4. ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (COMMERCE AND REVENUE), BHOJPUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ARRAH ----------- 2. 10.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State Electricity Board. The petitioner is a Government company incorporated under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the Telecom Network was run by the Department of Telecom Services and Department of Telecom Operations. These have been transferred to the Government company. By office memorandum dated 30.9.2000, the terms and conditions for transfer to the Government company provided for transfer of all assets and liabilities. A specific notification was issued on 23.1.2001 duly published in the Gazette that except for assets retained by the Department of Telecom or the Department of Telecom Services all other assets and liabilities to be transferred to the 2 Government company as assignee. The petitioner company therefore merely continued with the earlier electric connection of its predecessor and the question of deeming it to be a fresh applicant requiring it to make fresh security deposit does not arise. Reliance is placed on Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 to submit that dues prior to the period of two years from the date of demand i.e. 9.1.2010 cannot be raised. Learned counsel for the Board submits from the counter affidavit that the demand has been raised under Clause-8 of the schedule for miscellaneous and general charges of Tariff approved by the Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission which provides for initial security deposit from all Public Sector undertaking. The audit objection has been raised for non-compliance with the Tariff provision and which does not proved for any exemption to a Government company. Contrary to the grounds laid down in the counter affidavit of the Board that the demand for security deposit had been raised under the Tariff regulations, there being no challenge in the writ petition to the Tariff regulations, the Court holds the writ petition to be devoid of any merits. 3 The writ application is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)