IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14933 of 2008 ASHOK KUMAR SINHA son of Arjun Prasad, resident of Mohalla Dundi Bazar, Patna City, P.S.Chowk District Patna-------------------petitioner Versus 1.THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD through its Chairman, Bidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road,Patna 2.The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Area Patna, PESU, Mangles Road, Patna 3.The Electrical Superintending Engineer, PESU (East), Patna 4.The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, PESU (East), Patna City, Mithanghat, Patna 5.The Assistant Electrical Engineer, PESU(East) Mangles Talab, Patna City-----------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Shailendra Kr.Singh For the Electricity Board:Mrs.Nutan Sahay ---- 4. 21.4.2009 Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner seeks a direction commanding the respondent Board to provide new electrical connection in the book shop of the petitioner which he has taken on rent from Hira Lal bearing Circle No. 162, Holding No. 121/90, Ward No.52, P.S.Chowk Shikarpur, Patna City. The aforesaid book shop which is a katra was taken on rent by the petitioner from the landlord and thereafter he applied for electrical connection before respondent no.5, the Assistant Electrical Engineer, PESU (East), Mangal Talab, Patna City on 9.3.2006. The petitioner also deposited the necessary fees and security deposit for the said purpose but the respondent no.5 on 2 3.9.2008 refused to provide electrical connection on the ground that there are old dues of the landlord on the said premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the liability to pay electrical dues is the personal liability of the contracting parties and the same cannot be realized from the third party and thus electrical connection cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground of any dues with respect to the said premises. In support of the said proposition learned counsel relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Rekha Gupta vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & ors. :1999(3) P.L.J.R. 222 wherein it was held that a purchaser of the property cannot be denied electrical connection on the ground that there was dues with respect to an earlier electrical connection taken by the tenant of the said property. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board, on the other hand, relies upon the statement made in paragraph-5 in the counter affidavit and submits that there are very old dues of the premises in question which remain outstanding of Account No. 10129/28800300 N.D.S.-II in the name of Sita Ram 3 and also of Account No. 444/68/28800600 N.D.S. in the name of Mangal Prasad for Rs.31,564/- and Rs.25,503/- respectively. It is also pointed out that the landlord of the petitioner Hira Lal is the son of the said Sita Ram and thus the Board has rightly refused the claim of the petitioner for new electrical connection unless the said dues are cleared. It is stated that being the son of the landlord he ought to have cleared the dues in the name of Sita Ram for the amount of Rs.31,564/- and also the other amount due in the name of the previous tenant of the said premises. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the aforesaid decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Rekha Gupta (supra) it is evident that the dues pertaining to supply of electricity are of personal nature on the basis of contract between the consumer and the Electricity Board and for the said dues it is not open for the respondent Board to deny electrical connection to a third party. In the present matter the petitioner being a tenant of the premises in question is entitled to a fresh electrical connection and he cannot be denied the electrical connection on the ground 4 that an earlier tenant of the premises has not paid the dues with respect to the same premises. As held by this Court, the dues pertaining to the previous tenant have to be realized by the authorities of the Electricity Board from the said tenant by taking appropriate proceeding. It was also noticed in the said decision that if a consumer has dues exceeding the amount of security deposit then it is open for the authorities of the Board to disconnect his supply and if they have not disconnected the supply and allowed the arrears to accumulate on account of their own laches, a subsequent consumer cannot be refused a new electrical connection. The said decision of this Court squarely applies to the present case so far as dues pertaining to previous tenant, Mangal Prasad for Rs.25,503/- is concerned. So far as the dues of the landlord’s deceased father, Sita Ram is concerned, this Court is of the view that in all fairness the landlord cannot be permitted to let out the premises without clearing his own or his predecessor’s dues and thereafter the claim of the tenant for fresh 5 electrical connection must be subject to such dues being liquidated. In the said circumstances, the Board would not be obliged to grant a fresh electrical connection to the tenant if the previous dues of the landlord himself (in this case the father of the landlord) remained unpaid. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the direction that if the dues pertaining to late Sita Ram, father of the landlord, Hira Lal are paid then the authorities of the Board would be obliged to grant fresh electrical connection to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two weeks thereafter. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/