IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13862 of 2010 1. Shyam Shankar Jaiswal son of Late Laxmi Narayan Jaiswal resident of Holding No. 147/175B/159 of Plot No. 1889 Part, Ashok Chakragali, P.S. Khajekalan, District-Patna. 2. Awtar Singh son of Latre Sadar Balwant Singh resident of Holding No. 147/175B/159 of Plot No. 1889 Part, Ashok chakragali, P.S. Khajekalan, District-Patna. 3. Dipo Devi wife of Ram Chandra Prasad resident of Holding No.147/175B/159 of Plot No.1889 Part, Ashok Chakragali, P.S. Khajekalan, District-Patna. 4. Sandip Verma son of Late Rajiv Verma resident of Holding No. 147/175B/159 of plot No.1889 Part, Ashok Chakragali, P.S. Khajekalan, District-Patna Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman. 2. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Division Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna City 3. Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electricity Supply Sub Division Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. ----------- 4 21.06.2011 Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prakash Kumar, learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board and its authorities. The writ petition was filed by the four petitioners who are purchasers of different plots situated at Ashok Chakra Gali P.S. Khajekalan in the Town and District of Patna and which are fully described in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The vendors of the said plot were Sri Banarsi Lal Lohia, Smt. Shanti Devi Lohia and Sri Ajay Kumar Lohia. There is no dispute regarding the vendors of the plot 2 and that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the plot under valid sale deeds which have been placed at Annexure-1 series of the writ petition, which also encloses the mutation receipts. It is the non- consideration of the application of the petitioners before the respondent- Board for grant of a new electrical connection that led to the filing of the present writ petition, although no positive order was passed by the Board refusing the prayer of the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed in the present proceedings and in which it is simply stated that upon an enquiry made it was found that the premises for which the electrical connections were being sought were having outstanding dues pertaining to electrical energy consumption and thus the petitioners have been denied fresh electrical connection. This Court while considering the matter on earlier occasions has noticed that the counter affidavit did not disclose any details with regard to the name of the erstwhile owner, the period for which the dues were outstanding or the amount of dues. Rather a sweeping statement regarding outstanding dues pertaining to the lands in question was made as being the cause for denial of the electrical connection to the petitioners. Pursuant to the directions of this Court a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Board today during the course of proceedings. Copy of the same has already been served on learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. In paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit the respondents do admit that the vendor of the plots in question are Sri Banarsi Lal Lohia, Smt. 3 Shanti Devi Lohia and Sri Ajay Kumar Lohia and who had purchased the said plots from one Sri Shyam Agrawal a resident of Ashok Raj Path, Patna on 14.11.1986. It is nowhere stated in the counter affidavit that on the date of purchase of the plots by the vendor there were any outstanding dues relating to consumption of electrical energy. The respondent in paragraph 5 goes on to submit that the vendors of the plot subsequently let out the premises to one Sri Sita Ram Singh son of Sri R.P. Singh resident of Gurhatta, P.O. Jhauganj, Patna City, District- Patna. The tenant Sita Ram Singh was availing high tension electric connection in the premises situated on the plots in question for running of his Industry in the name and style of M/S Shanti Technoplast Pvt. Ltd. bearing service connection No. 284684 granted in the year 2003. It is stated that the electric connection stood disconnected in the month of November, 2005 by reason of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 3,57,910/- and for recovery of the same, the respondent Board instituted a certificate case giving rise to Case No. 1507 of 2006 which is pending before the District Certificate Officer, Patna. It is contended that the pendency of the said certificate case is well within the knowledge of the vendors and that the vendors should have mentioned this very fact in the sale deeds executed with the present petitioners. Learned counsel for the Board in support of his contentions also relies upon Clause 4.15 of the Bihar State Electricity Supply Code to submit that the vendor of the plot was equally liable and responsible for the outstanding dues pertaining to the plots in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners in response to the contentions as set out by the Board in the counter affidavit as well as in 4 the supplementary counter affidavit submits that there is not even a whisper against the present petitioners as being liable for payment of the outstanding dues. He thus submits that in these circumstances where the present petitioners are not liable for the dues, it is wholly arbitrary on the part of the respondent Board to have denied the electric connections to the petitioners. He further with reference to the clauses of the sale deed submits that the vendor has very candidly admitted that if there be any outstanding against the plots in question the same could be recovered from the vendor. Be that as it may. It is not disputed that the respondents do not hold the purchasers liable in any manner for the outstanding against the plots in question nor do they hold them responsible for making payment of the same. Further a certificate case has already been instituted against the said Sita Ram Singh and is pending before the competent court of the District Certificate Officer, Patna for realisation of the electric bills. It does not stand to reason as to why the respondent Board, then have denied a regular connection to the present petitioners. For the reasons as set out herein above, the writ petition is allowed, the respondent Board and its authorities are directed to grant a regular connection to each of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from receipt/production of a copy of this order, after completion of all the formalities as required under law and for which the petitioners would offer their co-operation. In so far as the pending dues are concerned, the respondent-Board has already instituted the certificate case against the defaulting consumer, Sita Ram Singh for 5 realisation of the dues and it goes without saying that the Board shall be at liberty to take recourse to the remedies as available to them under law. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)