( 1 ) WP 11577.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11577 OF 2010 Sandipan s/o Namdev Morampalle, Age 34 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o. N-4, A-31, CIDCO, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad PETITIONER V E R S U S 1 The State of Maharashtra, Minister of power supply, through its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai RESPONDENTS 2 The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Through its, the Assistant Engineer, Sub Division, Shahganj, Aurangabad Shri R.J. Nirmal, Advocate for the petitioner Shri V.D. Godbharle, AGP for respondent No.1 / State Shri P.B. Paithankar, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & A.V. NIRGUDE,JJ. DATED : 9th March, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent No.2 to provide electricity supply to Flat No. C-1, 3/3 at Mayur Park, Aurangabad and further not to demand arrears of previous bills, which were due to the previous owner. This Court is informed that total arrears of the previous owner are about Rs.18,000/-. This property was purchased by the petitioner sometime in 2010 in ( 2 ) WP 11577.10 auction under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. We have perused the terms and conditions of the sale-certificate and more particularly Clause (3) thereof, wherein the petitioner – purchaser has taken responsibility of payment of outstanding electricity bill. Apart from that, as per Clause 10.5 of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005, the successor in Law or the new owner / occupier of the premises are made liable to pay such electricity dues. In view thereof, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. The Judgment of the Supreme Court, relied upon by the petitioner in case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. M/sHanuman Rice Mills & ors (Civil Appeal No. 6817 of 2010, arising out of SLP (C) No. 16396 of 2006), in our opinion, does not apply to the facts of the present case. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. ( A. V. NIRGUDE,J. ) ( D.B. BHOSALE,J. ) SRM/